Skip to main content

Full text of "The Douglas book"

See other formats





3  1833  01208  9774 

-^===== — 1  Y-f  Vf  V^  b==? 

rt^M        '^^  ^^        -i 

Contents  of  aolunte  first. 

TITLE-PAGE.  ^"'" 

GENERAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS,            .             .  .                          i-H 

SU.ALMARY  OF  INTRODUCTION  AND  .MEMOIRS,  .                       iii-xvi 

INTRODUCTION,        ......  wii-lxxxviii 


MEMOIRS  OF  THE  EARLS  OF  DOUGLAS,          .  .                    37-496 

PEDIGREE  OF  THE  EARLS  OF  DOUGLAS,        .  497-5° ' 


Charter  by  King  James  the  First  (holograph),  to  Sir  Williaiii 
Douglas  of  Drumlanrig,  of  Drumlanrig,  Han-ick,  and  Selkirk, 
30th  November  1412,  ....       betKee7i\\yX\and\\s:X\ 

Grant   by  Archibald,  fifth    Earl  of  Angus,  to  David  Scott  of 

Buccleuch,  of  the  Castle  of  Hermitage,       .  .  .     ,,       xlii  rr//^/ xliii 

Precept  by  Archibald,  fourth  F.arl  of  Douglas,  to  James  de  Gled- 
stanes,  his  bailie  in  Sproustoun,  to  infeft  John  de  Cranstoun 
in  land  in  Sproustoun,  4th  November  1413,  .  .     ,,      xlvi  i?;;^/ xUii 

Holograph  Receipt  by  David  Hume  of  Godscroft,           .             .  „       Ixii  and  Ixiii 

Facsimile  Title-page  of  Godscroft's  History  of  Earls  of  Douglas,  .,       Ixiv  and  Ixv 

Facsimile  Title-page  of  Godscroft's  History  of  Earls  of  Angus,  .  „        Ixiv  and  Ixv 

Monument  of  Sir  James  Douglas  in  St.  Bride's,  Douglas,           .  180  and  181 

Sword  given  by  King  Robert  the  Bruce  to  Sir  James  Douglas,  .  184  and  185 

Armorial  Bearings  of  the  Lord  of  Galloway  of  old,  and  of  Douglas, 

Earl  of  Wigtown,  from  Sir  David  Lindsay's  Heraldry,  1543,  328  a/id  ^2<^ 

Douglas  and  Moray  Armorial  Stones  at  Bothwell  Castle,  .  350  and  551 

VOL.  I.  0, 


Armorial  Bearings  ofthe  Lord  of  Nitlisdale  of  old,  and  of  Douglas. 

Lord  of  Nithsdale,  from  Sir  David  Lindsay's  Heraldry,  1542,  358  and  359 
Armorial  Bearings  of  Douglas,  Earl  of  Douglas,  and  of  Douglas, 

Earl  of  Angus,  from  Sir  David  I,indsay's  Heraldry,  1542,    .  360  and  ^^di 

Monument  to  ALirgaret,  Countess  of  Douglas,  in  Lincluden,  398  and  399 

Inscription  upon  the  Monument,                ....  398  and  399 

Armorial  Stones  on  the  Monument,          ....  398  and  399 

Armorial  Bearings  of  the  Douglas  Family  in  Lincluden,  .  .  398  and  399 
Monument  of  Archibald,  second  Duke  of  Touraine,  and  fifth 

Earl  of  Douglas,  in  St.  Bride's,  Douglas,                     .              .  420  and  ^,21 

Monument  of  James,  seventh  Earl  of  Douglas,  in  St.  Brides,  442  and  443 

Armorial  Bearings  and  Inscription  on  that  Monument,  .  .  442  and  443 
Armorial  Bearings  of  Douglas,  Earl  of  Moray,  and  Douglas,  Earl 

of  Ormond,  from  Sir  David  Lindsay's  Heraldry,  1542,          .  450  atid  451 

ARMORIAL  SEALS.      Woodcuts  of- 

Sir  William  of  Douglas  (Le  Ilanii),  1296,  17 

Briceof  Douglas,  Bishop  of  Moray,  120S,  52 

William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  [?]  c.  1332,  .  190 

Hugh  of  Douglas,  Canon  (1333-1342),  .  199 
William,  first  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar 

(1342-1384), 291 

Isabella  Douglas,  his  daughter,  c.  1400,  290 
Archibald,  third  Earl  of  Douglas  (1389- 

1400), 354 

Archibald,  first  Duke  of  Touraine  (1400- 

1424). 400 

Princess  Margaret,  Duchess  of  Touraine, 
Archibald,    second    Duke    of    Touraine 


William,  third  Duke  of  Touraine  (1439- 


James,  seventh  Earl  of  Douglas  ^1440- 


Archibald,  Earl  of  Moray  (1445-1455), 
William,  eighth  Earl  of  Douglas  (1443 


James,  ninth  Earl  of  Douglas  (i452-i4i>S 






SIGNATURES.      Wcodcuts  of— 

David  Hume  of  Godscroft.   1594,  1626,       l.xiii 
Opening    words    of    Charter   by    Brice 

Douglas,  Bishop  of  Mor.ay,  120S, 
James,  ninth  Earl  of  Douglas,  1454. 






Origin  and  arrangement  of  the  work  :  the  Earl  of  Home  and  the  Douglas  Muniments, 
•'The  Chancellor  of  the  Exchequer's  Box"  at  Bothwell  Castle  :  progress  of  this  work 
Royal  origin  of  Godscroft's  History- :  vicissitudes  of  the  Douglas  Muniments,  . 
Contents  of  the  four  volumes  of  this  work  :  facsimiles  of  charters  as  illustrations, 
Anuorial  Seals  of  the  Douglas  and  Angus  Earls :  The  Douglas  heraldic  stakes, 
Important  part  played  by  the  Douglases  in  the  national  history  :  their  privileges. 
The  Heroes  of  Douglas  and  Angus  :  the  Good  Sir  James  :  valour  of  the  Douglases, 
William,  first  Earl :  the  hero  of  Otterbura  :    the  Douglases  of  Drumlanrig,     . 
Douglas  tombs  at  Melrose  :  offer  of  Dukedom  to  Archibald,  third  Earl  of  Douglas, 
Ac<iui3ition  of  Dukedom  of  Touraino  and  Earldom  of  Longueville  in  France,    . 
Magnificence  of  the  Douglases  :  death  by  treachery  of  the  sixth  and  eightli  Earls, 
Ilebellion  of  James,  ninth  Earl  :  his  fliglit  :  death  of  the  last  Earl  of  Douglas, 
The  Earls  of  Angus  :  offer  of  English  Dukedom  to  iTeorge,  fourth  Earl :  "  Bell-theCat, 
Gavin  Douglas,  Bishop  of  Dunkeld  :   "  Greysteil  "  :  great  power  of  the  sixth  Earl, 
The  Regent  ilorton  :  succession  of  the  (Tleubervie  line  to  the  Earldom  of  Angus, 
Creation  of  the  Marquisate  and  Dukedom  of  Douglas  :  extinction  of  elder  male  line, 
Two  Douglas  Bishops,  Brice  and  Gavin  :  Royal  alliances  of  the  Douglases, 
Extensive  territories  of  the  Douglases  :  the  Gledstanes  of  that  Ilk,  their  bailies, 
Catlet  branches  of  the  Douglases  :  Dukes  of  Hamilton  :  Dukes  of  Queensberry, 
Various  other  peerages  and  titles  :  the  Douglas  Earls  of  Morton  :  ancient  couplet, 
I'revjous  histories  of  the  Douglases  :  Sir  Richard  Maitland's  manuscript  history, 
History  of  the  Houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus  by  Hume  of  Godscroft,     . 








XX  xix 











Personal  history  of  Mr.  David  Hume  :  his  lands  of  Godscroft:  styles  himself  Then(jrlu.<<,  Iv 

"  Delineamentis,  instructions,  and  noates"  made  by  William,  tenth  Earl  of  Angus,     .  Ivii 

ilanuscript  copy  of  Godscroffs  Histor>'  at  Hamilton  I'alace,      ....  \\\\ 

Dedication  to  King  Charles  the  First :  .Sir  George  Douglas,  Godscroffs  literary  executor,  Iviii 

Godscroft  obtains  lands  of  Brockholes  :  his  handwriting  and  signatures,           .             .  Ix 

Printing  of  Godscroffs  History  :  title-pages  :  displeasure  of  the  Marquis  of  Douglas,  Ixiii 

Sale  of  History  interdicted  by  Lord  Angus  :  opinions  of  historians  on  the  work,           .  Ixv 

Expedients  to  promote  sale  of  History  :  editions  of  it  by  Ruddimau  and  other?,           .  lx\'i 

Douglas  genealogy  by  Peter  Pineda,  a  Spaniard  :  Herd's  projected  History,     .             .  Ixx 

Writers  on  the  origin  of  the  Douglases  :  tabular  pedigi-ee  tree  at  Bothwell  Castle,       .  Ixxi 

The  precedency  rivalry  among  peers  :  retours  of  William,  eleventh  Earl  of  Angus,      .  Ixxiii 

The  Douglas  Cause  :  litigation  in  the  Court  of  Session  :  adverse  decision,         .             .  Ixv 

Appeal  to  the  House  of  Lords  :  duel  between  lawyers  :  final  judgment  by  the  Lords,  .  Ixxviii 

Reminiscences  of  Lady  Jane  Douglas  by  Lord  Mansdeld  :  rejoicings  for  victory,          .  Ixxxi 

Lord  Monboddo  and  the  Cause  :  Margaret,  Duchess  of  Douglas :  Mr.  Thomas  Carlyle,  Ixxxiii 

Long  continuance  of  the  family  in  Douglasdale  :  changed  state  of  the  Borders,             .  lxxx\-i 

Acknowledgments  of  contributions  of  Charters,  etc.,       .....  Ixxxviii 


Discussion  of  the  subject  by  historians  :  Theories  of  Wyntown  and  Godscroft, 
Supposed  common  descent  of  families  of  Douglas  and  Moraj'  :  documentary  evidence, 
Earlier  members  of  the  two  families  :  colonisation  of  Moray  :  the  Flemings,     . 
Freskin  de  Moravia  and  his  descendants  own  lands  in  Lothian  and  Moray, 
First  historical  notice  of  the  Douglases  :  William  of  Douglas,  1174-1199, 
Archibald  and  his  brothers,  the  sons  of  William  of  Douglas,  settle  in  Moray  c.  1200, 
Connection  between  the  families  of  Douglas,  Moray,  and  Freskin  of  Kerdd  considered 
Ancestry  of  Freskin  of  Kerdal :   his  descendants  and  their  connections. 
Armorial  bearings  of  the  families  of  Douglas  and  Moray :  first  Douglas  seal,  1259, 
Hume  of  Gorlscroit's  traditions  :  insurrection  of  Donald  Bane :   Sholto  Du  glasse, 
Examination  of  Godscroffs  narrative  of  the  first  Douglases  :  the  Scoti  of  Italy, 
Donald  Bane's  insurrection  :  the  real  Sholto — William  of  Douglas  in  11 S7, 
Flemish  origin  from  Theobald  put  forward  by  George  Chalmers  :  his  theory  refuted, 
Probabilities  of  a  native  or  Celtic  origin  :  name  of  Douglas  derived  from  the  lantls, 
Mr.  Riddell's  suggestion  of  a  Northumbrian  origiu  :  summing  up  of  evidence,  . 




I. — WILLL4JVI  OF  DOUGLAS,  the  first  known  of  the  Douglas 
F.uiiLY,  e.  1174-c.  1214. 

His  parentage  unknown  :  possessed  the  lands  of  Douglas  before  1 1 98, 

Lands  and  water  of  Douglas  mentioned  previous  to  1 IGO  :  name  derived  from  lands,   . 




Witness  to  charters  of  King  William  the  Lion  :  early  eminence  of  family,         .  39 

His  children  :   Alexander,  his  third  son,  a  Canon  of  Spynic,  and  Superior  of  the  Hos- 
pital at  Elgin  :  Freskin,  parson  of  Douglas,  .  .  •  •  .40 


Circa  1213-czrra  1240. 

Son  of  William  of  Douglas  :  resigns  Hailes,  and  receives  Livingston  and  Hermistou.     .         44 
Created  a  knight :  witness  to  charters  in  Moray  and  elsewhere,  .  .  .45 

His  wife  and  children  :   Andrew,  probable  ancestor  of  the  Douglases  of  Morton,  46 

BRTCE  OF  DOUGLAS,  Bishop  of  Moray,  younger  son  of  Willi.ui 
OF  Douglas,  first  of  Douglas,  1203-1222. 

Prior  of  Lesmahagow :  appointed  Bishop  of  Moray,  1203  :  the  diocese  of  Moray, 

Spynie  his  episcopal  seat  :  bull  for  erection  of  cathedral  :  college  at  Spyuie  founded, 

Rejection  of  Spynie  for  Elgin  :  cathedral  afterwards  built  there  by  his  successor. 

Arbiter  at  the  Royal  Court :  his  episcopal  seal  :  the  king  witnesses  his  attestation. 

Additions  made  to  the  See  of  Moray  during  his  episcopate, 

He  is  excommunicated  by  the  Pope,  and  afterwards  absolved.  . 

Dies  1222  :  buried  at  Spynie,  and  canonised,     .  .  .  ■  - 

III.— SIR  WILLIAM  OF  DOUGLAS,  surnamed  Longleg. 
Constance,  his  wife.     Circa  1240-1 27 G. 

Son  of  Sir  Archibald  :  his  birth  :  surnamed  "  Longleg  "  from  his  stature,          .  56 

National  and  English  parties  in  Scotland  :  William  of  Douglas  joins  English  party,      .  57 

Manor  of  Fawelon  in  Northumberland  :  Disputes  with  Gilbert  of  Umfraville,  and  others,  5S 

How  Fawdon  was  acquired  :  its  history  :  Marriage  with  the  Family  of  Batayle,             •  61 

Contract  of  marriage  between  the  families  of  Douglas  and  Abernethy  1259,      .             ■  65 

Witness  to  Charters  :  grant  of  lands  of  Polnele  :  commissioned  to  measure  Pencaitland,  66 
His  death:  his  wife  and  children  :  his  armorial  seal,    .              .                           •             .6/ 

IV.— 1.  HUGH  OF  DOUGLAS.    MARJORY  of  Abernethy,  his  wife. 

Married  a.d.  1259. 

Little  known  of  him  :  marriage  with  Marjory  of  Abernethy  :  terms  of  the  contract,  .  68 
Charter  to  him  by  his  father  :  his  character  by  Godscroft  :  Patton  Purdie's  ambuscade.  70 
Hia  death  :  Douglas  buried  in  St.  Bride's  :  tomb  of  Marjory  of  Abernethy  there,         .         71 



IV._2.  SIK  WlLLlAiAl  OF  DuUGLiVS,  suiinamed  "  Le  Hardi.' 
ELIZABETH  STKWART,  ins  first  wife. 
ELEANOR  OF  Lovain  or  Ferrers,  his  second  wife. 

Early  history  :   obtains  land  in  Wariulun  :   severely  wounded  in  defeiiee  of  Fawdon,    . 
Marries  Elizabeth  Stewart :  receives  knighthood  :  he  probably  joined  the  crusaders,  r270 
Recalls  charters  from  Abbot  of  Kelso  :  abduction  of  Eleanor  de  Ferrers,  his  second  wife, 
His  English  possessions  seized  :  demand  by  Edward  for  his  surrender, 
Douglas  is  imprisoned  in  Leeds  Castle  and  fined  :  confiscation  of  his  lands  in  England 
The  treaty  of  Salisbury  :  the  Sheriff  of  Xorthuraljerland  in  iiursuit  of  Douglas, 
GeofiFrey  de  Lucy  claims  pasture  of  Fawdon :   he  prosecutes  Dougks  unsuccessfully, 
Assassination  of  Duncan,  Earl  of  Fife  :  death  of  cbief  assassin  in  Douglas  Castle, 
Death  of  Maid  of  Norway  :  Douglas  and  other  Scotch  nobles  pay  homage  to  King  Edwai 
The  Monks  of  Melrose  and  their  right  of  way  past  Douglas  Castle. 
King  John  Baliol :  is  summoned  to  perform  homage,  and  stand  trial,    . 
Contempt  for  Baliol :  answers  to  charges,  and  ].laces  himself  in  the  King"s  mercy. 
The  independence  of  Scottish  throne  asserted:  Douglas  takes  against  the  English 
Appointed  commander  of  the  Castle  of  Berwick  :   siege  an-l  capture  of  Berwick,  I20G 
Taken  and  imprisoned  in  Benvick,  but  is  liberated  and  performs  homage  to  Edward, 
Restoration  of  his  Scottish  estates  :   summoned  to  join  English  expedition  to  Flanders 
Rise  of  William  Wallace  :   Douglas  joins  him  :   capture  of  the  Castle  of  Sanquhar, 
Robert  Bruce  the  Younger:   invasion  of  English  :  surrender  of  the  Scots  at  Irvine, 
Douglas  once  more  imprisoned  iu  the  Castle  of  Berwick  :  removed  to  Tower  of  London 
His  death  in  the  Tower  :  his  character  :  his  marriages  and  his  children, 



v.— 1.  SIR  JAMES  OF  DOUGLAS,  commonly  called  the 
Good  Sir  James.     129S-1330. 

Prefatory  remarks  :   only  a  youth  wheu  his  father  clie.l :   he  seeks  refuge  in  France, 
Returns  to  Scotland  :  takes  service  with  Lamberton,  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews,  . 
His  personal  appearance  :  craves  restoration  of  his  lands  from  Edward  and  is  refuse* 
Resolves  to  share  the  fortunes  of  Robert  the  Bruce  :  joins  him  at  Erickstane,  LWG, 
Coronation  of  Bruce  at  Scone  :   Battle  of  Methven  :  escape  of  Bruce  and  Douglas, 
Wounded  by  Lord  of  Lorn  :  shares  Bruce's  privations  :  passage  of  Lochlomond, 
Sojourn  in  Island  of  Rachrin :   he  relates  to  Bruce  the  incident  of  the  spider,  . 
Return  to  Scotland:  successes  iu  Arran  and  Carrick :  Turnberry  Castle  taken, 
Visit  to  Douglasdale  :   scheme  for  taking  Douglas  Castle :  "The  Douglas  Larder," 
Douglas  Ciistle  rebuilt  by  Sir  Robert  ClilTonl  :  Douglas  slays  the  new  warden, . 
Returns  to  Bruce  :  defeats  English  force  under  Mowbray  at  Ederford  :    Bruce's  successes 



Uctrfat  of  English  armies  :   death  of  Edwar<l  the  First  :   feeble  attempts  of  successor,  . 
Third  assault  on  Douglas  Castle — "The  Adventurous  Castle,"  or  "  Castle  Dangerous," 
Hu  destroys  the  castle  :  captures  Kaudolpli  and  Stewart  of  Boncle  in  Tweeddale, 
Conjunction  of  forces  of  Bruce  and  Douglas  :  defeat  of  Lord  Lorn :  Argyll  surreuders 
Capture  of  castle  of  ilutherglen  :   Douglas  attends  the  first  Parliament  of  the  King, 
F5ruce  is  acknowledged  King  of  Scotland  by  the  Pope  and  the  French  King,     . 
Frustration  of  the  attem^its  of  the  King  of  England  against  Scotland,  . 
llaids  upon  northern  counties  of  England  by  Bruce  and  Douglas, 

('apture  of  castles  of  Perth  and  Edinburgh:  Douglas  takes  the  castle  of  Roxlnirgh,  l.'US 
Battle  of  Bannnckburn  :  Pursuit  of  Edward  to  Dunbar,  by  Douglas, 
Warden  of  the  Marches  :   Raid  into  England  :  Parliament  at  Cambuskenneth,  . 
Another  descent  on  the  north  of  England:   Parliament  at  Ayr  :  siege  of  Carlisle,  1315 
Cn successful  attack  \ipon  Berwick  :  more  raids  into  England,    ... 
Bruce  goes  to  Irelau<l :  Douglas  appointed  Warden  of  Scotland  during  the  King's  absence 
Renewal  of  warfare  by  the  English  :  Douglas's  camp  at  Lintalee  :  Justiciar  of  Lothian 
Sir  Thomas  Riclimond  slain  l>y  Douglas  :  Lintalee  invaded  :  Edmund  de  Caliou  slain, 
Boast  of  Sir  Robert  Neville  :  slain  by  Douglas  :  return  of  Bruce  :  capture  of  Berwick. 
Lenity  of  the  Scots  towards  the  English :  the  Douglas  Tower  in  Berwick, 
Peter  Spalding  rewarded  :   Berwick  committed  to  the  High  Steward  :  raid  into  England 
Parliament  at  Scone  :  new  settlement  of  the  succession  to  the  Crown, 
Douglas  appointed  to  succeed  Randolph  in  the  Regency  :  he  takes  the  oath  of  fidelity, 
Irritation  of  Edward  the  Second  at  success  of  Bruce  :   unsuccessful  siege  of  Berwick, 
Incursion  by  Bruce  and  Douglas  into  England  :  the  "  Chapter  of  Mitton," 
More  raids :  agreement  to  a  truce  :   letter  by  Bruce  and  Scottish  nobles  to  the  Pope. 
Grants  of  lands  to  Douglas  :  bounding  charter  of  Donglasdale  :  the  Soulis  conspiracy. 
Negotiations  between  the  Scots  and  the  Earl  of  Lancaster :   raid  into  England, 
Edward  resolves  to  chastise  Scotland  :   Bruce  anticipates  him  by  a  raid  into  England. 
Edward  invades  Scotland  as  far  as  Edinburgh,  but  is  obliged  to  retreat, 
English  army  harassed  by  Douglas :   l]ruce  enters  England :  battle  of  Biland  Abbey, 
Douglas  receives  from  Bruce  tiie  Emerald  Charter,  1324  :  grant  of  Buittle  in  Galloway 
Parliament  at  Scone  :  provision  for  rebuilding  the  Abbey  of  Melrose :  visit  to  Tarbert 
Truce  with  England:  Bruce  acknowledged  King  of  Scotland  by  Edward  ii.  and  the  Pope 
Edward  in.  succeeds  to  throne  of  England  :  Bruce  provoked  to  break  the  truce. 
Siege  of  Norham  :  Scottish  and  English  soldiery  in  1327  :   Scottish  army  in  England, 
Prolonged  search  for  the  Scottish  array  :  discovery  and  challenge  by  Edward, . 
Stratagems  of  Douglas :  invades  English  camp  :  story  of  the  fox  and  the  fisherman. 
Departure  of  Scots  homewards  without  a  battle :  deserted  camp — chagrin  of  English, 
Bruce  and  Douglas  besiege  and  take  Norham  Castle  :   assault  on  the  castle  of  Alnwick 
Truce  agreed  to:  the  English  Parliament  recognise  the  independence  of  Scotland,  1328. 
Treaty  between  England  and  Scotland  :  restoration  of  Fawdon  and  other  English  lands, 
Illness  and  death  of  King  Robert  Bruce  :   Douglas  intrusted  with  the  king's  heart,  1329, 
Douglas's  preparations  for  carrying  Bruce's  heart  to  the  Holy  Land :  gifts  to  Church, 
IVparturc  from  Scotland  :  offers  his  services  to  Kine  Alphonso  against  the  Saracens, 















































Slain  on  the  plains  of  Andalusia.  lii;50  :  conflicting  accounts, 

Body  brought  to  Scotland  and  buried  in  the  Kirk  of  St.  Bride  :  his  mouument'there, 

Tributes  to  his  memory  by  Fordun,  Bower,  and  Godscroft, 

Description  of  sword  presented  to  him  by  Bruce  :  his  sons  William  and  Archibald, 


VI.— 1.  WILLIAM  OF  DOUGLAS,  Lord  of  Dougi^is,  son  of 
THE  Good  Sir  James.     1330-1333. 

Inherited  as  Lord  of  Douglas  in  succession  to  his  father. 

Views  of  historians  as  to  the  succession  to  the  Good  Sir  James, 

Complaint  by  monks  of  Coldingham  against  William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  and  his  uncle, 

Death  of  William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  at  Halidon  Hill,  while  under  age, . 

Supposed  Armorial  Seal  of  William,  Lord  of  Douglas, 


^- — 2-  HUGH  DOUGLAS,  Lord  of  Douglas,  brother  of  the 
Good  Sir  James.     1333-1342. 

His  retired  Ufe  and  consequent  obscurity  in  history  due  to  his  being  a  churchman. 

His  birth  :  detained  in  England  when  a  child:  educated  for  the  Church, 

A  canon  of  Glasgow  Cathedral:  held  the  prebend  of  Old  Roxburgh, 

The  Douglas  estates  after  the  battle  of  Halidon  in  English  hands" 

Bravery  of  the  knight  of  Liddesdale  :  Hugh  served  heir  to  Sir  James  Douglas,' 

Grants  of  lands  by  Lord  Hugh  to  William  Douglas  of  Lothian, 

William  Douglas  receives  the  lordship  of  Liddesdale  from  King  David  the  Second, 

Resignation  of  the  Douglas  estates  for  the  .purpose  of  entailing  them  to  the  next  heir. 

Restoration  of  the  prebend  of  Old  Roxburgh  to  Lord  Hugh  by  the  King  of  England, 

Lord  Hugh  founds  and  endows  chapel  at  Crookboat  of  Douglas— his  armorial  s°eal. 


v.— 3.  SIE  ARCHIBALD  OF  DOUGLAS,  Knight,  Eegent 
of  Scotland. 

BEATRICE  LINDSAY  (Crawford),  his  wife. 

His  birth  and  parentage  :  charters  of  lands  from  King  Robert  Bruce,    .  .  .200 

Erroneously  desigTiated  by  historians  Lord  of  Galloway  :  impetuous  an.l  hasty  temper,  201 
Regents  of  Scotland  after  Bruce's  death  :  Randolph  Earl  of  Moray  :  Donald  Earl  of  Mar,  202 
Battle  of  Dupplin  :  siege  of  Perth  :  success  of  Edward  Bahol :  Baliol  cro^vned  at  Scone,  '    203 


His  subsequent  movemeuts  :  chased  by  Douglas  from  Aunau  into  England.       .  204 

Baliol  re-enters  Scotland  :   cnunter  incursion  by  Douglas  into  Northumberland,  "JUO 

Appointed  Regent  of  Scotland  :    Berwick  invested  bj'  Baliol  and  the  English  king,  .        '1()~ 

Battle  of  Halidon  Hill :  defeat  of  the  .Scots,  and  death  of  the  itegent,                 .  .        211 

His  wife  anil  children  :   Eleanor,  Countess  of  Carrick,    .              .              .          "    .  .214 

VI.— 2.  SIR  WILLIAM  DOUGLAS,  Kni(;ht,  Lord  of  Douglas, 
Created  Eaul  of  Douglas,  and  Eakl  of  Douglas  and  Mai:. 

LADV  MAKGARET  OF  MAR.  ins  Countess. 

His  birth:  education  iu  France:  return  to  Scotland:  drives  English  from  Douglasdale,  216 

First  appearance  in  political  life  :   mistaken  charge  of  treason,  ....  218 

Subjection  of  the  chiefs  of  lialloway,  lo53  :   death  of  Knight  of  Liddesdale,     .               .  220 

Circumstances  of  that  event :  the  debated  ownership  of  Liddesdale,      .              .              .  22o 

Kegrant  of  the  Douglas  estates,  1354  :  negotiations  with  England,  1355,            .              .  227 

Skirmish  of  Nisbet  Moor  :   invasion  by  Edward  m. :   the  "Burnt  Caudlemass,"  1356, .  229 

Douglas  goes  to  France  :   knighted  by  French  king  :   at  the  battle  of  Poitiers,  .              .  231 

Negotiations  for  liberation  of  King  David  the  Second  :  created  Earl  of  Douglas*.  135S,  233 

In  England  as  a  hostage  for  King  David's  ransom  :   grants  Cavers  and  other  lands,        .  235 

Justiciar  of  Scotland  south  of  the  Forth  :  embassy  to  England,              .              .  238 

Foundation  of  chaplainry  in  St.  Giles's  Church,  Edinburgh,  for  benefit  of  Earl's  soul,  .  240 

Insurrection  against  King  David:  Douglas  surprised  at  Lanark:  escapes  and  submits,    .  241 

Pilgrimage  to  Canterbury  :  Prince  Lionel  of  England  proposed  as  next  king  of  Scotland.  242 

Rejection  of  proposal  :  terms  of  peace  with  England  :   renewed  sacrifices  by  Scots,        .  244 

Earl  absent  from  Parliament :  Margaret  Logie  :  grant  of  Annandale  to  John  of  Logic,  247 

Dissensions  among  nobles  :   imprisonment  of  Steward  :   Douglas  accused  of  cuni]>licity,  2.'iO 

Truce  with  England  for  fourteen  years,  13G9:   expedition  to  North  of  Scotland,             .  251 

Resignation  of  barony  of  Dalkeith,  1370  :  The  Earl's  connection  with  Dalkeith,            .  253 

Accession  of  King  Robert  the  Second,  1371  :   alleged  claim  to  the  Crown  by  Douglas,  .  256 

Pays  homage  to  the  new  king  :   acquisition  of  castle  of  Tantallon  and  North  Berwick,  260 

Patronage  of  Cavers  :  the  Earl  remonsti'ates  with  the  monks  of  Melrose,           .              .  263 

Disputes  between  the  Earl  and  the  English  Border  wardens:   commissioners  appointed,  265 

Letter  about  John  Mercer,  and  the  Earl's  clerk,  1376  :  the  Earl  imports  victuals,          .  267 

His  accession  to  earldom  of  Mar  :   Mar  title  and  estates  :  arrangements  for  succession.   .  27o 

(Conflicts  with  the  f^nglish  :   taking  of  Berwick  and  capture  of  Sir  Thomas  Musgravf .  .  275 

Invades  England,  and  burns  Penrith  :  invaders  bring  the  pestilence  from  England,      .  27S 
Truce  with  England  :   Duke  of  Lancaster  visits  Scotland  :   Earl's  movements,  .              .281 

Siege  of  Lochmaben  :  invasion  of  Scotland  :  Teviotdale  restored  to  its  allegiance,          .  283 

The  Earl's  death  :   burial  at  Melrose  :   his  marriage  :  survived  by  his  wife  :  his  children,  286 

Isabella  Douglas.  Countess  of  Mar  :  her  hu3ban<ls  :    Margaret.  (  onntess  of  Angus,        .  2ss 
VOL.  [.                                                                                                                                       ]. 


VII. — 1.  JAMES,  sKcoxr)  F.akl  of  Doiclas  and  Mau. 




His  birth,  c.  135S:   early  life  at  Dalkeith:   marriage  to  i'rinctss  laaljel,  1373,               .  iOi 

He  is  knighted  :  paynumts  by  the  king  to  him  :   obtains  lordship  of  Liddesdale,            .  293 

Error  of  Godscroft  regarding  embassage  of  Sir  James  to  France  in  1381,            .              .  294 

Succeeded  his  father  in  13S-i;  events  of  that  year  :  expeditious  into  Teviotdale,           .  29.') 

Visit  of  French  knights  to  the  Scottish  Court :   irritation  of  Scots  against  England,       .  296 

Invasion  of  England  by  the  Earl  and  the  French  knights ;  embassy  to  England,           .  297 

Treaty  with  England  and  France  :  arrival  of  French  army  under  Sir  .John  de  Vienne, .  298 

Reception  of  French  by  Scots  :   joint  attack  on  Roxburgh  and  north  of  England,           .  300 

King  Richard  the  Second  enters  Scotland  with  large  army  :  failure  of  his  expedition,  .  301 

Scots  and  French  besiege  Carlisle  :  departure  of  French  troops,              .                             .  302 

Invasion  of  West  Marches  of  England  :   interval  of  peace — Border  truce,           .  304 

Charters  granted  by  .James  as  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar ;  Drumknrig  and  Cavers,  30.5 

Preparations  for  war  with  England  :  muster  of  large  army  at  Southdean,  1388,  305 

Party  detached  under  Douglas  :   rapid  and  silent  advance — attack  on  Newcastle,  307 

Single  combat  of  Dougla.s  and  Percy— capture  of  Percy's  pennon  :   march  to  Otterburn,  309 

Description  of  camp — attack  on  Otterburn  tower — pursuit  by  Percy,    .                             .  310 

Sur])rise  of  Scottish  camp:  Froissart's  account  of  battle:  bravery  of  Douglas— his  death.  312 

The  dying  Earl's  last  speech  :   victory  of  the  Scots  :  other  incidents  of  the  battle,          .  314 

Funeral  of  the  second  Earl  of  Douglas  at  Melrose  Abbey  :   character  of  the  P]arl,           .  3 1 .'» 

Percy's  pennon  :  question  of  genuineness  of  pennon  preserved  at  Cavers,            .              .  316 

Date  of  battle  of  Otterburn — variety  of  opinions — evidence  and  conclusion  as  to  date,  317 

Council  at  Linlithgow  :  decision  as  to  Earl  James"s  tenandry  of  North  Berwick,  317 

His  Countess  :  the  families  of  Queensberry  and  Cavers  descended  from  him,     .  319 

Vr.— 3.  SIR  ARCHIBALD  DOUGLAS,  third  Eaul  of  Douglas, 
Lord  of  Galloway,  surnameu  ''  The  Grim." 

.lOAXNA  MORAY  (Bothwell),  his  Countess.     1388-1400. 

Parentage  of  Sir  Archibald  :   his  succession  to  title  and  estates  of  Douglas,        .  .  321 

At  the  battle  of  Poitiers  :   his  adventures  there  :  temporary  imi)risonment  in  England,  322 

Knighted :  Constable  of  Edinburgh  Castle  :   Sheritf  of  Edinburgh,         .  324 

Warden  of  West  Marches  :  in  Parliament  :  pilgrimage  to  St.  Denis  in  France,  .  .  325 

Conservator  of  truce  with  England  :   dispute  with  Lord  of  Menteith,    .  .  .  326 

Signs  treaty  of  1369  :  charters  ship  to  trade  between  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland,  327 


Ac<iuisition  of  lordship  of  Galloway,  1369  :  purchases  the  earldom  of  Wigton,  1372,    .  32!> 

Ambassador  to  France :  reasoas  for  em))assy  :   expenses:   accession  of  Hobert  li.,           .  329 
Again  ambassador  to  France  :   preparations  for  mission  :   success  of  embassy,    .              .331 

Charter  founding  an  hospital  at  Holywood  :   grants  of  land  :  witness  to  royal  charters,  332 

Letter  as  Warden  to  King  Edward  iii.  :   Commissioner  to  arrange  peace  with  England,  334 

Skirmish  with  the  English  at  Melrose  :   Froissart's  account  of  his  mode  of  fightmg,      .  335 

Truce  with  England  :   his  Border  Laws  :  holds  Justiciary  Court  at  Dumfries,    .              .  330 

Expiry  of  truce  :  siege  and  capture  of  Lochmaben  :  state  of  the  Highlands,      .               .  337 

Peculiar  legal  customs  of  r4  alio  way  :   French  expedition  of  Sir  John  de  Vieune,  13S5,  .  339 

Invasion  of  England  by  the  Scots:  the  battle  of  Otterburn,  13SS,        .                             .  340 

Becomes  third  Earl  of  Duuglas,  13S9  :   his  succession  confirmed  by  Parliament.              .  341 

Vaunts  of  English  Marshal :  expedition  into  England;  truce  with  France  and  England,  342 

The  Earl  of  Douglas  and  the  English  envoys  :   Legacy  to  Earl  from  Douglas  of  Dalkeith,  343 

Prolonged  peace  with  England  :  Border  duels  between  Englishmen  and  Scotchmen,      .  344 

Diets  of  truce  :   English  claim  to  Jedburgh  Forest :   Cambuskeuueth  and  the  Keirs,  345 

Creation  of  Dukes  of  llothesay  and  Albany :  the  Earl  refuses  the  proffered  dignity,      .  34f> 

Member  of  Duke  of  Rothesay's  Council,  1390  :  last  year  of  Earl's  life  :  his  death,        .  347 

The  Earl's  daughter  married  to  the  Duke  of  Rothesay  :  his  benefactions  to  the  Church,  34S 

Liacluden  College  :  Sweetheart  Abbey  :   founding  of  collegiate  church  of  Bothwell,      .  349 

Character  of  the  Earl  by  his  contem[)oraries  :   his  marriage  to  Joanna  Moray,  .              .  351 

His  Countess  heiress  of  Bothwell :  survives  her  husband  :   their  children,          .              .  353 

Sir  WiLLLur  Douglas  of  Nithsdale,  natural  son  of 
Archibald,  third  Earl  of  Douglas. 

Marries  Princess  Egidia  :   brilliant  military  career  :   valour  at  siege  of  Carlisle.               .  355 

Expedition  against  Ireland  and  Isle  of  Man :  departure  for  Dantzic,      .              .              .  356 

Chosen  admiral  of  fleet  against  the  Saracens  ;   assassinated  by  Lord  Clifford,    .              .  357 

His  two  children  :  Egidia,  Countess  of  Orkney  :  Sir  William  Douglas  of  Nithsdale,  35S 

VII. — 2.  ARCHIBALD,  first  Duke  of  Touraine,  fourth  Earl  of 

Douglas,  Lord  of  Galloway  and  Annandale,  etc. 

(scrnamed  Tineman). 


Succeeds  his  father  as  fourth  Earl  of  Douglas  :  origin  of  his  surname  of  "  Tineman,"  .       360 
HiH  birth  :  marries  the  Princess  Margaret :  is  provided  in  the  lordship  of  Douglas.      .        361 


Styled  ^Master  of  Douglas  :  iippointed  k.eei>er  of  the  castle  of  Edinburj^'h  for  life,  1400, 
Takes  possession  of  Dnnbar  Castle  and  the  domains  of  March  and  Annandale, 
Defeats  Earl  of  March  and  Henry  Percy  in  East  Lothian  :  pursues  them  to  Berwick. 
Succession  as  fourth  Earl  of  Douglas  :  power  and  inliuence  of  the  familj-. 
Warden  of  the  Marches  :  correspondence  about  truce  with  King  Heniy  the  Fourth, 
Death  of  David,  Duke  of  Rothesay,  his  brother-in-law  :  charged  against  Douglas, 
Act  of  Parliament  exculpating  Douglas  and  Albany  from  complicity  in  Rothesay's  death. 
Expeditions  into  England  :  battles  of  Nisbet-Moor  and  Homildon  Hill, 
Charge  by  the  Earl  of  Douglas  :  defeat  of  Scots :  Swinton  and  Sir  Adam  Gordon, 
Douglas  severely  wounded  and  taken  prisoner  :  confined  in  Alnwick  Castle, 
Disaffection  of  Percys  to  their  king  :  Douglas  estates  conferred  upon  Henry  Percv, 
Alliance  between  Percy  and  Douglas  :  battle  of  Shrewsbury:  Douglas  aLiain  taken. 
Negotiations  for  the  Earl's  ransom  and  release  :  number  of  hostages  required,  . 
Frequent  visits  to  Scotland  on  jiarole  :  principal  bailie  of  the  Priory  of  Coldino-ham, 
Indentures  between  Douglas  and  the  King  of  England  al.)out  prolonged  parole, 
Douglas  refuses  to  return  :  remonstrance  by  Henry  :  final  arrangements  for  release. 
Restoration  of  earldom  of  March,  except  Lochmaben  Castle  and  Annandale,  . 
Earl  of  Douglas  called  Lord  of  Annandale :  friendship  between  him  and  Albany, 
Marriage  of  the  Earl's  daughter  Elizabeth  to  Albany's  son  John,  Earl  of  Buchan,  141;;. 
Ambassador  to  Flanders,  1412  :  difficulties  of  the  voyage  :  visit  to  Inchcolm, 
Treaty  of  alliance  between  the  Earl  and  John  Duke  of  Burgundy, 
Warden  of  the  Marches  :  Border  duel  :  Douglas  and  the  custumars  of  Edinburgh, 
Negotiations  for  the  release  of  King  James  from  English  captivity. 
Dispute  between  the  monks  of  Melrose  and  Haig  of  Bemerside  :  the  "  Foul  Raid," 
Negotiations  by  Douglas  at  London  for  temporary  liberation  of  King  James.  . 
Douglas  engages  to  serve  the  King  of  England,  1421  :  death  of  Henry  the  Fifth, 
The  Earl  enters  the  French  service  :  gifts  of  lands  to  the  Church  :  departs  to  France. 
Swears  fealty  to  the  French  King  :  appointed  Lieutenant-General  of  the  French  forces. 
Created  Duke  of  Touraine,  1424  :  gift  of  Duchy  ratified  by  French  Parliament, 
Consternation  of  the  inhabitants  of  Tours  :  they  send  a  deputation  to  the  king. 
Triumphant  reception  in  Tours  :  appoints  Governor  of  town  and  castle  of  Tours, 
Siege  of  castle  of  Ivry  :  its  relief  attempted  by  the  Duke  :  battle  of  Verneuil, 
Defeat  of  French  and  Scottish  allies  :  Duke  of  Touraine  and  his  second  son  slain, 
Ransom  of  the  bodies  of  the  Duke  and  his  son  from  the  English  :  burial  in  Tours, 
Margaret,  Duchess  of  Touraine  :  lordship  of  Galloway  :  resides  at  ca.stle  of  Thrieve, 
She  claims  her  terce,  and  rents  of  the  Duchy  of  Touraine  :  the  French  king's  reply. 
She  resigns  the  lordship  of  Galloway  :  her  death,  c.  1456.  at  Thrieve  Castle,  . 
Burial  of  the  Duchess  in  the  church  of  Lincluden  :  description  of  her  monument, 
The  children  of  Archibald,  first  Duke  of  Touraine  :  Sir  James  of  Douglas, 
Laily  Elizabeth  Douglas :  her  three  husbands,  John.  Earl  of  Buchan,  Sir  Thomas 
Stewart,  and  William  Sinclair,  third  Earl  of  Orkney:  her  crypt  in  Roslin  Chapel, 
Armorial  seals  of  Archibald,  fourth  Earl  of  Douglas,  and  Margaret,  Duchess  of  Touraine, 






37  S 
38 1» 




VIII.— 1.  ARCHIBALD,  second  Duke  (^f  Touraine,  fittji  Earl 

OF  Douglas,  Earl  of  Wigtown  and  Longueville, 

Lord  of  (Calloway,  etc. 

LADY  EUPHEMIA  GRAHA^I  (Menteith),  his  Countess. 


His  birth :  early  years  s)>eut  iu  England  as  a  hostage  for  his  father,  140,j-14l;i. 

Relations  with  the  custumars  :   confirnis  charters  granted  by  his  father, 

State  of  afifairs  in  France  :   mission  of  the  Duke  of  Vendome  to  Scotland, 

JJ<juglas  and  Earl  of  Buchan  sent  with  an  army  to  Eiance :   created  Earl  of  Wi'Tto\vn 

Victories  of  the  Scots  in  France  :   Battle  of  Bauge,  1421, 

Created  Earl  of  Longueville  in  Normandy,  and  receives  the  lordship  of  Duularoy, 

Returns  to  Scotland,  1423:  attends  King  James  at  his  coronation,  and  is  knighted,  14'24 

Sits  as  one  of  the  assize  at  the  condemnation  of  Albany  and  other  nobles, 

Succession  to  Earldom  of  Douglas  and  Dukedom  of  Touraine  :   fate  of  tliat  Duchv, 

The  Douglas  estates  :  arbiter  between  monks  of  Melrose  and  Haigs  of  Bemerside, 

Attends  Parliament :   accompanies  King  James  against  the  Lord  of  the  Islea. 

Imprisonment  of  the  Earl  in  Lochleven  Castle,  14.31  :   His  bearing  towards  the  kino-, 

Charters  by  the  Earl :  Dispute  with  Athole  about  lands  of  Dunbarny  and  Pitcaithly, 

Death  of  James  the  First:  Douglas  appointed  Lieutenant-General  of  the  Kingdom,  1437 

History  of  the  period,  as  given  by  Boece  and  other  historians,  unreliable. 

Important  measures  passed  during  the  Earl's  lieutenancy :  custody  of  the  young  king 

Story  of  removal  in  a  clothes-chest  of  the  young  king  from  Stirling  a  myth. 

The  Earl  with  the  king  at  Rothesay:   Queen's  marriage  to  the  Black  Knight  of  Lorn, 

Death  of  Earl  at  Restalrig,  143<J  :   monument  in  church  of  St.  Bride's,  at  Douglas, 

r^y  Euphemia  Graham,  his  Countess  :  her  second  marriage  to  James,  Lord  Hamilton 

Children  of  Archibald,  fifth  Earl  of  Douglas  :  his  armorial  seals, 



^X- — WILLIAM,  third  Duke  of  Touraine,  sixth  Earl  of  Douglas, 
Lord  of  Galloway,  etc. 

JANET  or  JAXE  LINDSAY  (Cra^^tord),  his  Countess. 

Hu  birth  :  succession  to  the  Earldom  of  Douglas  :  Knighted  at  Holyrood,  1430, 
Splendour  of  his  retinue  :   story  of  his  paying  homage  for  Duchy  of  Touraine,  . 
A  member  of  the  General  Council  at  Stirling,  1430  :  jealousy  of  Crichton, 
•^npposed  charges  against  the  Earl  :  he  is  treacherously  invited  to  Edinburgh, 


Murder  of  the  Earl  and  lu3  brother  David  in  Edinluiryh  Castle,  1440, 

Remarks  of  Boece  aud  other  historians  on  this  tragedy, 

The  Earl's  uncle  erroneously  charged  with  complicity  in  his  death, 

Execution  of  Sir  Malcolm  Fleming  of  Cumbernauld  as  an  adherent  of  the  Douglases, 

Division  of  the  Douglas  estates  :  loss  of  Galloway  and  Annaudale. 

Lady  Janet  Lindsay,  Countess  of  William,  sixth  Earl  of  Douglas  :   no  issue, 



42  •• 


VII. — 3.  JAMES,  .sEVKNTH  Earl  of  Douglas,  first  Earl  of 

AVONDALE,    and    LoRD    BaLWVNY,    CALLED    "  TlIE    GrOSS." 

LADY  .  .  .  STEWAKT  (Albany),  his  first  Wife. 
LADY  BEATRIX  8INCLAIK  (Orkney),  his  Countess. 

James,  second  son  of  Archibald,  third  Earl  of  Douglas,  succeeds  as  heir-male,                .  4;]| 

His  corpulency  and  soubriquet,  "  The  Gross:"  impetuosity  and  turbulence  in  youth.  . 

Acts  as  receiver  from  the  custumars  of  annuity  of  his  sister,  the  Duchess  of  Rothesay,  432 

Bums  town  of  Berwick  :   spirited  reply  to  letter  of  King  Htnry  the  Fourth  of  England,  433 

Capture  of  Prince  James  of  Scotland  by  the  English  :  date  of  this  event,          .              .  434 

Slaughter  of  Sir  David  Fleming  by  James  Douglas  :   probable  reasons  for  this  deed,     .  43r> 

Warden  of  the  Marches :   charges  of  depredation  on  the  customs,           .              .  43G 

Imprisons  custumars  :   receives  extensive  lands  from  his  brother,  the  fourth  Earl.         .  437 

Return  of  King  James  the  First  from  England  :  James  Douglas  on  jury  against  Albany.  438 

Created  Earl  of  Avondale  and  Lord  Balvany  :  appointed  .lustice-Ceueral  of  Scotland,  43!) 

Protest  by  Egidia  Douglas,  Countess  of  Urknty,  as  proprietrix  of  Nithsdale,     .              .  439 

Douglas  also  Sheritf  of  Lanark  and  conservator  ol  the  truce  with  England,        .              .  440 

Meeting  at  Bute  with  the  Lord  of  the  Isles  :   dispute  between  the  Homes,         .  440 

Succeeds  to  earldom  of  Douglas  :  alleged  connivance  at  death  of  his  grand-nephew^,  441 

Death  of  the  Earl  at  Abercorn,  1443  :  his  monument  in  St.  Bride's  Church,  Douglas,  .  442 

His  two  wives  :  their  children  :   his  seal  a.s  Justice-General,      ....  443 

AECHIB.ILD  DOUGLAS,  Earl  of  Mor.w. 

Elizabeth  Dune.u^  Countess  of  Moray,  his  Wife. 
14  4.")- 14.".. 

Twin-brother  with  James,  ninth  Earl  of  Douglas:  receives  the  Earldom  of  Moray,  447 

He  attends  Parliament,  1445  :  one  of  the  conservators  of  a  truce  with  England  in  1449,  447 

Harrying  of  Strath  bogie,  1452  :  title  of  Earl  of  Moray  bestowed  on  Sir  Jamts  Crichton,  448 

King  James  the  Second  attempts  to  crush  the  House  of  Douglas  :  battle  of  Arkinholm,  44S 

l»offi»t  of  the  Dmiylases,  and  death  of  Archibald,  Earl  ui  Moray,  1455, 

«-'har"cJ  with  fortifying  castles  uf  Luchiudorb  and  Daruaway:  great  hall  of  L»aruaway, 

Kliza'x'th,  Countess  of  Moray, — the  "  Dow  of  Diiubar  :  "  their  children, 



HUGH  DOUGLAS,  Kaul  of  Oumond.     liio-lioo. 

<,'ri'ated  Earl  of  Ormond  in  1445  :  his  estates  :   gains  a  victory  over  the  English,  144S,  451 

In  charge  of  Douglas  estates  during  his  brother's  absence:  defies  king  at  .Stirling,        .  451 

Sheriff  of  Lanarkshire,  1454:  taken  prisoner  at  Arkinhohn,  and  executed,        .  .  452 

His  estates  confiscated  :   his  son  and  daughter  :    Hugh,  Dean  of  Brechin,  .  452 

JOHN  DOUGLAS,  Lord  of  Balvany.     UoO-1463. 

Heir  of  entail  to  the  Douglas  estates  in  1451  :   his  lands  in  BanfTshire,                .  .        45.*} 

At  battle  of  Arkinholm  :   withdraws  to  England  :   his  estates  forfeited,               .  .        453 

Visit  to  the  Lord  of  the  Isles  :  schemes  of  war  against  Scotland,            .              .  454 

Taken  prisoner  on  the  Borders  :  confiued  in  castle  of  Edinburgh,  and  beheadeil,  .       454 

VHL — 2.  WILLIAM,  Eighth  Earl  of  Douglas,  Second  Earl  of 
AvoNDALE,  Lord  of  Galloway,  etc. 

LADY  MAKGARET  DOUGLAS,  the  Fair  Maid  of  Galloway, 

HIS  Countess. 


His  birth:   obtains  knighthood  in  1430:   succeeds  to  Earldom,  1443,    .              .              .  456 

In  favour  with  King  James  :  appointed  Lieutenaut-Geueral  of  the  kingdom,     .              .  456 

Induences  the  king  against  Crichton  :   takes  Barnton  :  Crichton  deposed,  1443,              .  457 

Marries  Margaret,  tlie  Fair  Maid  of  Galloway:  alliance  with  Hamilton  and  Livingstone,  458 

I'H'sieges  Etlinburgh  Castle:  Crichton  capitulates,  1445  :  grant  of  money,           .              .  459 

'.'barter  to  monks  of  Melrose,  who  claim  to  be  free  from  his  jurisdiction,                          .  460 
Kamily  arrangement  anent  the  succession  to  the  Douglas  estates,  1447,              .              .461 

B<irdcr  warfare  :   negotiations  with  France  :   claims  the  Duchy  of  Touraine,       .  462 

Tournament  at  Stirling:   downfall  of  the  Livingstones  :   Parliamentary  enactments,     .  464 

•"hararter  of  Earl  of  Douglas  in  the  office  of  Lieutenant- General  of  the  kingdom,            .  465 

Wit  to  Rome  at  celebration  of  the  papal  jubilee  :   his  reception  in  England  and  Rome,  466 

"tj  against  him  in  absence  :   strongholds  besieged  by  the  king:   returns  from  Rome,,  467 

LtToncdiation  with  the  kin-j  :   numerous  charters  granted  to  him  by  the  king,               .  468 


X>)alition  with  Earls  of  Crawford  and  Ross  against  Cricbton  and  Tiirubnll, 
Charges  against  Earl :   tradition  of  his  beheading  Maclellan  of  Bomby  examined, 
Invrited  to  Stirling,  and  slain  there  by  the  king  and  courtiers,  1452, 
Motives  of  the  king  for  this  deed  :  Act  of  Parliament  exonerating  the  king, 
Passionate  nature  of  King  James  the  Second  :  complicity  of  Crichton  in  th^e  murder. 
Letter  by  James  to  the  king  of  France  :   Lady  Margaret  Douglas,  his  Countess, 



Vlir.— 3.  JAMES,  Ninth  (and  last)  Earl  of  Douglas, 


LADY  MARGARET  DOUGLAS,  the  Fair  .^LvID  of  Galloway, 

HIS  Countess. 

His  birth:  agreement  between  him  and  his  twin  brother  Archibald  as  to  seniority,  1447, 

Activity  in  military  affairs:  one  of  the  combatants  in  the  tournament  at  Stirling^ 

Accompanies  his  brother  William  to  Eome ;   negotiations  with  the  English, 

Resents  the  death  of  his  brother  :  makes  hostile  demonstration,  and  burns'stirling. 

Defeat  of  Crawford  at  Brechin  :    Douglas  displays  contempt  for  king  and  Parliament. 

Submits  to  the  king  at  Douglas  Castle :  terms  of  agreements  with  tlie  king. 

Safe-conduct  to  travel  into  England  :   further  agreement  with  King  James°'the  Second 

Marries  his  brother's  widow  :   restoration  of  the  Earldom  of  Wigtown, 

Negotiates  truce  with  England  :   visits  Earl  of  Ross  at  Knapdale  :   Sheriff  of  Lanark, 

Jealousy  of  the  king,  who  besieges  and  demolishes  Douglas's  castle  of  Inveravon, 

Possible  justification  for  hostilities  on  the  king's  part :  siege  of  Abercorn  Castle,' 

Douglas  deserted  by  Lord  Hamilton  and  other  adherents,  and  retires  to  Englan.l, 

Fall  of  Abercorn  :   battle  of  Arkinholm  :   forfeiture  of  the  Douglases, 

The  Earl  of  Douglas  in  England :  gives  Thrieve  (.'astle  to  the  English  king, 

HostiHties  between  Scotland  and  England :   embassy  to  the  Earl  of'Ross:  re^'volt  of  Ross 

Joins  the  enterprise  of  Alexander,  Duke  of  Albany,  and  returns  to  Scotland, 

Is  taken  prisoner,  and  sentenced  to  captivity  in  Lindores  Abbey,  1484, 

King  James  the  Third  applies  to  Douglas  for  assistance  against  his  own  son. 

Death  of  the  last  Earl  of  Douglas  in  14S8  :   burial  in  Abbey  of  Lindores, 

Lady  Margaret,  Countess  of  Douglas  :  her  marriage  to  John,  Earl  of  Athole, 

Alleged  marriage  of  ninth  Earl  of  Douglas  to  Anne  Holland  or  Nevill  in  England  :  no  issue 








f\^  the  death,  in  January  1859,  of  the  Hunourahle  Jane  Margaret  Douglas 

^^     of  Douglas,  Dowager  Lady  Montagu,  the  extensive  estates  of  Douglas 

and  Angus  devolved  upon  her  eldest  daughter,  Lucy-Elizabeth  Douglas  of 

Douglas,  Countess  of  Home.     Along  with  the  territorial  estates  the  Countess 

of  Home  also  inherited  an  extensive  collection  of  charter  muniments  relating 

to  the  families  of  Douglas  and  Angus  and  their  territories. 

The  husband  of  the  Douglas  heiress  was  the  late  Cospatrick  Alexander, 

Earl  of  Home.     Soon  after  the  Douglas  succession  opened  to  the  Countess 

his  Lordship  asked  me,  in   the  year  18.59,  to  make   an  inspection  of  the 

Douglas  Muniments  and  report  upon  them  generally.     Having  previoush' 

examined  a  part  of  them  in  reference  to  the  ancient  title  and  dignity  of 

Earl  of  Angus,  the    extent  and  value  of   the    collection,  and  its  historical 

importance  were  already  known  to  me.     Believing  that  the  opening  up  of 

the  muniments  of  the  illustrious  houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus  would  be  a 

valualile  addition  to  the  history  of  Scotland,  I  took  the  liberty  of  suggesting 

to  Lord  Home  that  the  more  important  of  the  charters  and  correspondence 

should  be  printed,  and  form  one  of  the  series  of  Scottish  Family  Histories  on 
vr>r..  I.  r 


which  1  was  then  engaged.  His  Lordship  and  Lady  Home  were  pleased  to 
entertain  my  suggestion  favourably,  and  authorised  the  work  to  be  proceeded 
with.  His  Lordship  was  pleased  to  write—"  I  am  very  desirous  that  some 
skilful  and  fricndli/  hand  should  be  employed,  and  if  you  are  ever  able  to  do 
it,  I  shall  be  much  gratified." ^  In  another  letter,  dated  five  days  later,  his 
Lordship  wrote — "  It  would  be  selfish  in  those  who  can  afford  the  expense 
to  refuse  to  allow  the  publication  of  papers  of  general  interest.  ...  I  shall 
certainly  feel  it  my  duty  to  consent  to  anything  which  may  make  Hume  of 
Godscroft  more  interesting." 

It  was  in  this  liberal  and  enlightened  spirit,  which  was  so  conspicuous  in 
every  action  of  his  long  and  honourable  life,  that  Lord  Home  listened  to  the 
suggestion  which  I  had  ventured  to  submit  to  him.  From  time  to  time  his 
Lordship  received  from  me  reports  on  the  extensive  collection  of  Douglas 
muniments  as  they  were  ingathered  from  various  sources.  In  these  reports 
he  was  much  interested,  and  his  extensive  general  knowledge  of  the  history 
of  the  Houses  of  Douglas  and  xlngus,  as  well  as  of  his  own  distinguished 
Border  House  of  Home,  was  readily  available  when  any  difficulty  occurred 
in  collecting  together  the  scattered  muniments.  A  valuable  portion  of  them 
nearly  escaped  observation  through  an  accidental  derangement  of  the  lock  of 
a  box.  This  is  graphically  explained  in  a  letter  from  Lord  Home,  dated 
31st  January  1860,  in  which  he  says  :  "  There  stands  in  the  hall  at  Bothweil 
Castle  a  handsome  chest,  with  the  royal  arms  upon  it,  called  '  The  Chancellor 
of  the  Exchequer's  Box.'  It  was  inherited  by  Lady  Douglas  from  her 
mother,  the  Countess  of  Dalkeith,  who  married  as  her  second  husband  the 
famous  Charles  Townshend.  That  chest  has  a  curious  lock,  defended  by  a 
spring."  Lord  Home  further  explains  that  he  was  assured  that  the  secret  of 
opening  it  had  died  with  the  late  Lord  Douglas.  AVith  the  assistance  of  the 
carpenter.  Ids  Lordship  cut  the  Gordian  knot,  by  breaking  open  the  chest, 

*  Letter,  dated  Douglas  Castle,  12th  September  ISoO. 


whon  it  was  found  that  the  lock  had  gone  wrong.  The  papers  Mere  then 
forwarded  to  me,  and  were  found  to  contain  several  of  the  most  valuable  of 
tlie  collection. 

Five  years  later,  when  progress  was  made  in  tlie  work,  Lord  Honu- 
wrote  : — "  I  can  assure  you  I  never  think  of  tlie  Douglas  papers  other- 
wise than  with  satisfaction  that  they  are  in  your  safe  keeping,  and  that  it 
.should  have  so  happened  that  one  so  admirably  qualified  as  you  are  should 
be  able  and  willing  to  undertake  the  task,  in  your  case  a  labour  of  love,  of 
an-anging,  and  indeed  preserving  them  from  destruction." 

In  subsequent  letters  Lord  Home  referred  in  his  usual  kind  and  generous 
terms  to  the  "  incalculable  benefit  being  rendered  to  us,"  adding  "  No  one 
appreciates  the  favour  you  do  us  more  than  T  do." 

Li  this  way  did  Lord  Home,  always  frank,  friendly,  and  cordial  in  his 
correspondence,  co-operate  with  me  and  encourage  me  in  the  task  which  1 
liad  undertaken,  till  his  lamented  death  in  the  year  1881.  The  two  volumes 
of  charters  and  correspondence,  being  nearly  completed,  had  previously  been 
submitted  to  him.  Since  his  Lordship's  death,  and,  indeed,  since  the  death 
of  the  Countess  of  Home  in  1877,  her  son  and  successor  in  the  Doughus 
estates,  the  present  Earl  of  Home,  has  had  the  control  of  this  work,  which 
has  now  been  completed  in  four  quarto  volumes,  under  his  direction,  with 
the  valuable  assistance  of  his  brother,  the  Honourable  James  Archibald 
Home,  barrister-at-law,  Loudon.  The  proof  sheets  of  the  memoirs  of  the 
Eiirls  of  Douglas  and  Angus,  in  the  first  and  second  volumes,  have  been 
revised  by  Mr.  Home  with  great  ability  and  learning.  Both  brothers  have 
dutifully  fulfilled  the  wishes  of  their  parents. 

The  present  History  of  the  Douglases  cannot  boast  of  a  royal  origin  like 
the  previous  well-known  History  of  the  Houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus  by 
Mr.  David  Hume  of  Godscroft.  The  originator  of  that  history  was  no  less  a 
I"Tsr,nage  than  King  James  the  Sixth  of  Scotland.     Although  not  himseli 


possessing  much  of  the  heroic  iu  his  character,  the  kin-  was  pruud  of  his 
•lescent  from  the  house  of  Douglas.  His  grandmother,  Lady  Margaret 
Douglas,  the  mother  of  Darnley,  was  the  only  child  of  the  marriage  of 
Archibald,  the  sixth  Earl  of  Angus  and  tlie  Princess  Margaret  of  Engdand, 
the  widowed  queen  of  King  James  the  Fourth.  King  James  the  Sixth  was 
on  terms  of  intimate  friendship  with  his  kinsman,  William,  tenth  Earl  of 
Angus,  and  induced  the  Earl  to  undertake  a  history  of  the  Douglas  family. 
Obeying  his  :\rajesty's  commands,  the  Earl  commenced  the  work  and  wrote 
outlines  as  to  how  it  should  be  treated.  He,  however,  confided  the  real 
labour  to  Mr.  David  Hume  of  C^odscroft,  who  was  a  relative  and  friend  of  the 
family,  and  who  made  the  history  a  life-labour.^  But  though  the  present  work 
cannot  boast  of  such  an  illustrious  origin  as  the  previous  histoiy,  it  is  hoped 
that  from  the  importance  of  the  family  to  which  these  volumes  relate,  this 
new  history  of  the  Douglases  may  be  considered  an  acceptable  addition  to  tlie 
Family  Histories  which  have  appeared  in  recent  years. 

At  a  date  so  early  as  the  year  1288,  there  is  a  notice  of  the  existence  of 
charters  of  the  Douglas  family.  Sir  William  of  Douglas  "  le  Hardi,"  father  of 
the  (lood  Sir  James,  granted  to  the  Abbot  of  Kelso  a  receipt  for  his  charters 
which  had  been  intrusted  to  the  Abbot,'-  probably  for  safety,  in  the  cell  of 
Lesmaliagow.  The  castle  of  Douglas  was  as  fatal  to  the  cliarter  muninit-nts 
of  the  family  as  it  was  dangerous  to  many  of  its  keepers  and  castellans.  All 
the  charters  of  the  family  previous  to  the  time  of  King  llobert  the  Bruce 
were  lost  and  destroyed  in  the  successive  burnings  of  the  castle,  when  it  was 
held  by  the  Englisli  during  the  wars  of  indei)endence.  The  muniments  of 
the  family  which  then  existed  did  not  escape  that  general  destruction  of  the 

»  In  a  subsequent  part  of  thi.s  introduction  special  notice  will  be  taken  of  that  history  as 
well  as  of  the  various  editions  of  it  whicli  have  been  printo.l. 
-  Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  i,  p.  1G8. 


•  asile  kuowu  as  the  '•  Douglas  Larder."  Subsequent  forfeitures  of  the 
fiUiiily  anil  burnings  of  their  castle  made  further  havoc  of  their  muniments. 
« July  a  very  few  of  the  original  charters  of  the  Earls  of  Douglas  have  been 
ureserved.  These  charters  came  into  possession  of  the  fourth  Earl  of  Angus 
when  he  obtained  the  Douglas  estates  soon  after  their  forfeiture  in  1455. 

WTiile  the  Douglas  documents  were  thus  unhappily  lost,  those  of  the 
P^jirlf?  of  Angus  have  been  preserved.  But  even  these  ran  the  risk  of  sharing 
the  same  fate  as  those  of  Douglas.  One  adventure  attending  the  Angus 
muniments  is  related  in  the  memoir  of  the  sixth  Earl  of  Angus.  Wlien  he 
was  forfeited  by  the  Parliament  of  King  James  the  Fifth  in  1528  the  Earl 
made  laudalde  exertions  to  save  his  charters.  He  had  recourse  to  a  large 
brass  beef-pot,  whicli  formed  part  of  the  furniture  of  the  kitchen  of  Tantallon, 
and  was  of  such  dimensions  that  the  kitchen  boys  who  stirred  the  spits 
could  easily  lie  in  it  for  warmth.  With  the  aid  of  the  captain  of  the 
castle,  and  a  stalwart  trooper,  both  of  whom  were  pledged  to  secrecy,  the 
Earl  transferred  the  muniments  from  the  charter-chest  to  the  pot.  The  lid 
was  securely  clasped  with  iron,  and  the  pot  was  buried  under  a  little  bridge 
near  the  farthest  gate  of  the  castle.  The  three  feet  of  the  pot  stood  upon  the 
solid  rock,  so  as  to  preserve  it  from  water,  and  there  the  charters  remained 
for  fifteen  yeai-s  until  the  Earl's  return  from  England.^ 

The  Angus  nnmiments  which  were  thus  preserved  contained  the  oldest 
•.liiirters  now  in  the  charter-cliest.  Several  of  them  refer  to  the  ancient 
family  of  Abernethy,  the  Stewarts  of  Boncle,  and  the  Bruns  of  Preston  in 
•>:irly  times.  These  charters,  and  the  additions  which  have  accumulated 
in  the  course  of  the  subsequent  three  centuries  in  connection  with  the  Angus 

'  I'he  iiiteiment  of    cbarters    in  times   of  muniments  of  the  Maxwell-Herries  families, 

'l*i>i,'er  was  often    resorted    to.     The   mimi-  however,     were    buried    in    the    garden    at 

meats  of  the  Maitlands  of  Lauderdale  were  Terregles,  and  preserved  without  injury, 
hnried,  but  were  destroyed  by  damp.     The 

xxii  I  XT  HOD  I  'C  TIOX. 

family  were,  wlien  intrusted  to  the  author  for  the  present  work,  contained  in 
twelve  large  old  oak  chests.^ 

Dealing  with  such  a  large  collection  of  miscellaneous  ancient  muniments 
for  the  purpose  of  making  selections,  and  reducing  these  into  tlie  form  of 
the  present  work,  was  necessarily  a  slow  and  tedious  process.  Much  care 
and  labour  wore  necessary,  as  well  as  anxious  consideration  as  to  the 
moulding  of  the  almost  chaotic  mass  into  shape.  The  work  has  now  been 
finally  arranged  and  finished  in  four  volumes. 

The  First  Volume  contains  a  detailed  history  of  the  Eakls  of  Douglas 
and  Dukes  of  Toukaine  in  France,  and  their  ancestors  from  William  of 
Douglas,  in  the  time  of  King  William  the  Lion,  to  James,  the  ninth  and 
last  Earl  of  Douglas,  who  died  at  Lindores  Abbey  in  1  t88.  The  First 
Volume  also  contains  a  Summaey  of  the  memoir  of  each  successive  inheritor 
of  the  Douglas  estates,  and  a  Tabular  Pedigree  of  the  Earls  of  Douglas. 

The  Second  Volume  contains  a  similar  detailed  history  of  the  Eai;ls  of 
Angus  from  George  Douglas,  who  was  the  first  Earl  of  Angus  of  the  familv 
of  Douglas  in  the  reign  of  King  Kobert  the  Third,  down  to  his  lineal  male 

'  There  is  no  properly  detailed  inventory  of  that  during  these  three  years,  Mr.  Chalmer 
the  Douglas  muniments.  A  modern  inventory  went  through  all  the  Duke's  writs  and  papers. 
in  two  folio  volumes  exists ;  but  it  chiefly  and  made  an  accurate  inventory  of  the  whole 
refers  to  the  writs  of  the  lands  purchased  b\'  from  the  time  of  Kingllobert  theEruce  [Vol.  ii. 
the  Duke  of  Douglas  and  the  feudal  investi-  of  I'rinteil  Papers  in  the  Douglas  Cause  con- 
tares  of  his  successors.  In  the  printeil  taining  the  Answers].  But  that  inventory 
answers  for  Archibald  Douglas  of  Douglas  and  lias  not  been  found.  Short  inventories  of 
his  tutors,  dated  12th  January  17G2,  in  i\\v  jiortions  of  the  Douglas  writs  arc  in  the 
"  Douglas  Cause,"'  reference  is  made  to  an  in-  charter-chest.  In  one  of  tliem,  there  is  de- 
ventory  of  the  whole  writs  and  evidents  of  the  scribed  a  charter  by  King  William  the  Lion  to 
Duke  of  Douglas's  estate,  made  by  Mr.  Andrew  Walter  Barclay  [Berkeley],  then  chamberlain 
Chalmer,  writer  in  Edinburgh,  the  law-agent  to  the  king,  of  the  lands  of  Inverkeillor- 
of  the  Duke,  after  Mr.  Archibald  Stuart,  for  without  date.  But  that  charter  has  not  been 
three  years,  from  175G  to  IT.IO.     It  is  .stattd  found. 


(lescendant,  Archibald,  tlie  tirst  and  ouly  Duke  of  Douglas,  who  died  in  the 
year  1761,  and  the  descendants  of  his  sister,  Lady  Jane  Douglas.  His 
(Jruce  was  the  last  of  the  direct  male  line  of  the  first  Douglas  Earl  of  An^rus. 
The  Second  Volume  also  contains  a  Summary  of  the  memoir  of  each  succes- 
sive inheritor  of  the  Angus  title  and  estates,  and  a  Tabular  Pedigree  of  the 
Maris  of  Angus  and  their  cadets,  the  Douglases  of  Glenbervie.  It  like- 
wise contains  the  collected  Armorial  Seals  of  the  Earls  of  Douglas,  Dukes  of 
Touraine,  and  Earls  of  Angus,  and  their  signatures,  all  specially  engraved 
for  this  work ;  and,  as  an  Appendix,  a  history  of  the  L.VXDS,  B.veonies  and 
Castles  of  the  Earls  of  Douolas  and  An«nis 

The  Thikd  V(3Lume  of  this  work  contains  the  Ciiahters  relating  to  both 
lines,  the  Earls  of  Douglas  and  Angus.  The  charters  of  lands  which  were 
granted  by  the  successive  sovereigns  of  Scotland  to  the  Earls  of  Douglas  and 
their  ancestors,  are  known  to  have  been  very  numerous.  The  oldest  Douolas 
charters  now  in  the  Douglas  charter-chest,  consist  chiefly  of  a  few  of  the 
grants  of  lands  by  King  Eobert  the  Bruce  to  hLs  faithful  companion  in  arms, 
tlie  Good  Sir  James  Douglas. 

The  charters  connected  with  tlie  Angms  estates  are  much  more  abundant. 
They  are  also  the  most  ancient.  Tlie  intermarriages  between  tlie  Stewart 
Karls  of  Angus  and  the  family  of  Abernethy,  brought  into  the  Angus  charter- 
chest  the  old  charters  of  Eoncle  and  Preston,  and  several  old  and  interesting 
Abernethy  documents.^ 

Besides  these  charters  many  others,  either  granted  by  or  to  the  Douglas 
family,  have  been  traced  in  other  private  charter-chests.  Through  the 
liberality  of  the  owners,  these  charters  are  either  printed  at  length  or  ample 
abridgTnents  of  them  given  in  that  volume,  which  also  contains  a  detailed 
Ab.stract  of  all  the  charters  printed  in  full. 

^  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  pp.  1,  7,  349,  .350,  .Sr),5. 


The  facsimiles  of  charters  in  the  third  volume  form  a  special  feature  as 
illustrations.  They  are  of  considerable  extent  and  variety,  ranging  from  the 
year  1226  to  the  year  1591.  One  of  the  earliest  writs,  of  which  a  facsimile 
is  given,  is  an  indenture  of  marriage  between  Sir  Hugh  of  Abernethy  and 
Sir  William  of  Douglas,  for  the  marriage  of  Hugh  of  Douglas  and  Marjory 
of  Abernethy,  dated  on  Palm  Sunday,  1250.  This  is  the  oldest  contract 
of  marriage  which  has  yet  appeared  in  the  history  of  any  Scottish  family. 
There  are  also  preseiwed  in  the  Douglas  charter-chest  grants  by  the  two 
rival  kings,  Bruce  and  Baliol,  and  facsimiles  of  two  of  these  are  given,  side 
by  side,  in  the  third  volume.  Facsimiles  ol"  other  three  Douglas  charters  are 
given  in  this  Introduction.^ 

The  Fourth  Volume  contains  the  Cokrespondenck  of  the  Earls  of  Dougla> 
and  Angus,  Any  family  correspondence  of  an  early  date  probably  shared 
the  fate  of  the  charters  in  the  destructions  of  the  castle  of  Douglas.  Mimy 
of  the  letters  printed  have  ])een  collected  from  the  public  records  as  well  as 
private  repositories.  This  volume  also  contains  a  detailed  Abstract  of  the 
correspondence,  and  a  comprehensive  Index  of  persons  and  places  men- 
tioned in  the  four  volumes.  Such  is  a  brief  outline  of  the  general  arrange- 
ment of  the  Douglas  Book. 

In  the  first  and  second  volumes  there  is  a  series  of  armorial  seals  of  the 
Douglas  family,  from  Sir  William  of  Douglas,  "  le  Hardi,"  in  1296,  to  Archi- 
bald, Duke  of  Douglas,  who  died  in  1761.  The  seals  of  the  nine  Earls  of 
Douglas  are  complete  with  the  exception  of  those  of  the  second  and  seventh 
Earls.  The  first  Earl  had  at  least  four  seals,  and  each  of  the  subsequent 
Earls  had  more  than  one  seal.     The  great  seal  of  the  ninth  and  last  Earl  is 

^   With    few    exceptions,    the    lithographs        by  Messrs.   M'Lagan  and  Cumming,  of  &lin- 
of  the  charters  in  this  work  have  been  made       burgh. 

r ~  ~ 


])erhaps  the  most  striking  in  the  whole  collection.  The  charges  in  the  fourth 
([uarter  of  that  seal  are  not  in  any  known  seal  of  the  previous  Earls  of 
Douglas.  These  charges  have  been  read  as  "six  piles  for  Brechin."^  But 
that  appears  to  be  a  mistake,  as  Brechin  is  invariably  represented  by  oiilv 
three  piles.  The  charges  referred  to  indicate  in  form  and  appearance  stakes 
made  of  wood,  such  as  Sir  James  Douglas  probably  used  in  his  famous  suc- 
cessful stratagem  against  the  English  in  Jed  Forest.  The  exploit  seems  to 
be  commemorated  in  other  forms  both  in  earlier  and  later  Douglas  and 
Angus  seals.  The  Earls  of  Angus,  after  the  fifth,  also  bore  stakes  in  the 
third  quarter,  five  in  number,  which  were  afterwards  reduced  to  four,  and 
ultimately  to  three.  The  latter  number  has  induced  the  belief  that  they 
represented  the  piles  of  Brechin.  But  apart  from  the  discrepancy  between 
the  numbers  six  and  three,  it  is  improbable  that  the  ninth  and  last  Earl 
of  Douglas  would  adopt  any  representation  of  the  piles  of  Brechin,  as  he 
had  no  known  connection  with  the  family  of  Brechin,  either  by  descent 
or  marriage,  which  would  warrant  his  assumption  of  their  armorial  bearings 
in  any  form. 

With  the  view  of  making  the  series  of  armorial  seals  quite  complete, 
special  inquiries  were  made  for  the  seal  of  the  second  Earl  of  Douglas,  tlie 
hero  of  Otterburn.  In  Mr.  Paddell's  "  Stewartiana,"  published  in  IS  13,, 
there  are  many  references  to  the  Douglas  family.  He  describes  a  charter  by 
Earl  James  and  his  armorial  seal  in  the  following  terms : — 

"  I  not  long  ago  met  with  an  original  and  interesting  old  charter,  without  date, 
by  Jacobus  de  Douglas,  filius  et  haeres  domini  WilHelmi  comitis  de  Douglas  et  de  Mar, 
dominus  baronie  de  Onile  in  Mar, — in  other  words,  the  hero  of  Otterburn,  whereby 
he  confirms  a  grant  which  '  Johannes  Ranulphi,  comes  Moravie,  dominus  Vallis  Anandie 
et  Mannie,  fecit  domino  Patricio  de  Carnoto,  militi,  de  manerio  suo  de  Lunfannan, 
oum  parco  ejusdem.'  But  it  has  especially  a  seal  of  the  young  hero  well  executed,  in 
fine  preservation,  the  only  one  of  his  I  believe  I  have  seen,  exhibiting  the  Douglas 

^  Laing'a  Catalogue  of  Scottish  Seals,  vol.  i.  p.  46. 
VOL.  I.  ^ 


arms,  the  heart  being  uncrowned,  with  the  usual  chief,  u^jou  which  is  a  hihel  of  three 
points,  not  unlike  what  an  elder  son  and  heir-apparent  might  ulso  bear  at  present. 
The  supporters  are  two  lions,  and  the  crest  a  plume  of  feathers.  The  latter,  tlie  true 
supporters  and  crest  of  the  house  of  Douglas,  were  carried  besides  by  Earl  Vv'illiaui 
his  father.  I  have  been  at  the  greater  pains  in  noticing  this  grant,  which  is  from  the 
charter-chest  of  the  ancient  and  knightly  family  of  Burnet  of  Leys — where  there  are 
also  other  attractive  ancient  muniments — owing  to  every  remnant  of  so  gallant  a 
personage  as  the  former  being  iuteresting."^ 

On  application  to  the  present  Sir  Eobert  Burnett  of  Leys  for  inspection 
of  the  charter  and  seal  of  James,  Earl  of  Douglas,  quoted  by  Mr.  Eiddell,  Sir 
llobert  and  liis  agent  made  a  search  in  the  charter-room  at  Crathes,  without 
finding  either  the  charter  or  the  seal.  In  the  absence  of  the  seal,  Mr. 
Eiddell's  description  of  it  may  be  held  to  be  accurate,  especially  as  he  says 
he  was  particular  in  his  description  of  it. 

No  armorial  seal  of  the  seventh  Earl  of  Douglas  has  been  discovered,  uur 
any  seal  used  by  him  as  Earl  of  Avondale ;  but  the  armorial  bearings  wldcii 
he  used  as  Earl  of  Douglas  are  still  to  be  seen  on  his  monument  in  St. 
Bride's  church  at  Douglas.  They  are  in  good  preservation,  notwithstanding 
the  neglect  to  which  they  were  long  sttbject.  Part  of  the  original  gilding  on 
the  arms  is  still  preserved.  Separate  drawings  of  the  monument  and  of  the 
arms  are  given  in  this  volume.     The  seventh  Earl  of  Douglas  held  the  office 

^  Stewartiana,  pp.  131,   132.     In   a   foot-  "  apud    lajiiJem   de    Mygbethe    in    Crumar." 

note   Mr.    Riddell    exjilaius  that    the    manor  Mr.  Riddell  then  asks,   "is  the  stone  of  Mac- 

of    Lunfanuan    conveyed    by   the    charter   of  beth  here  Macbeth's  cairn,  or  the  stone  which 

James,   Earl  of  Douglas,   above  quoted,  is  a  commemorates  the  faU  of  Macbeth's  son?' 

remarkable  historical  place,  where  Macbeth  On    examination,    however,   it    appears    that 

was  overcome  and  fell.     Mr.  Eiddell  adds  an  Mr.   Riddell  had  misread  the  letter  "v  '"  in 

excerpt  from  a  charter  by  Thomas,  Earl  of  Mygvethe  for  '"b,"'  and  converted  Mygvethe 

Mar,  in  the  fourteenth   century,   contirming  into  Mygbethe.     The   ancient  Earls   of  Mar 

to   Duncan,  the  son  of  Roger,   the   lands   of  had  a  court  at  Migvie  or  Mygvethe,  where 

Abergeldy,  etc.,    in   Mar,    which    contains   a  sasine  was  taken  for  their  earldom. 
rcuderin<i  to  the  crranter  of  certain  services 


of  Justice-general  of  Scotland.  An  impression  of  his  official  seal  has 
roceiitly  been  discovered,  and  an  engraving  of  it  is  also  given.  It  is  the  first 
time  that  it  has  been  printed  in  any  work,  and  it  does  not  appear  in  the 
puljlished  catalogues  of  Scottish  seals. 

The  armorial  seals  of  the  Earls  of  Angus  are  also  nearly  complete,  only 
that  of  George  Douglas,  the  first  Earl  of  Angus,  being  wanting.  The  seal 
of  James,  third  Earl  of  xVngus,  has  not  been  engraved,  as,  except  the  differ- 
ence in  the  Christian  name,  it  is  identical  with  that  of  his  brother  George, 
the  fourth  Earl.  Several  of  these  seals  are  very  beautiful  as  works  of  art — 
that  of  the  fourth  Earl  being  particularly  graceful.  After  describing  twentv 
armorial  seals  of  the  Earls  of  Douglas  and  Angus  in  Laing's  Catalogue  of 
Scottish  Seals,  the  following  note  is  appended,  having,  we  are  aware,  been 
written  by  the  late  Mr.  Cosmo  Innes,  with  reference  to  them: — "  It  would  l)e 
improper  to  pass  these  fine  seals  of  the  Douglases  without  recommending 
them  to  the  particular  attention  equally  of  the  herald  and  the  admirer  of 
mediicval  art.  These  descriptions  convey  a  very  imperfect  idea  of  the  beauty 
of  their  designs  and  the  general  excellence  of  their  execution.  In  filling  an 
important  chapter  of  Scottish  heraldry,  they  furnish  at  the  same  time  perhajts 
the  best  evidence  of  the  state  of  art  of  their  periods,  and  no  small  proof  of 
the  taste  and  splendour  of  that  illustrious  house." ^ 

An  exhaustive  history  of  the  families  of  Douglas  and  An^us  almost 
includes  the  history  of  Scotland.  At  an  early  period  in  the  annals  of  their 
country  the  Douglases  are  found  prominent  in  battle,  in  the  church,  and  at 
Cmirt.  In  the  national  struggles  for  freedom  and  independence,  their  names 
and  memories  are  cherished  second  only  to  those  of  Wallace  and  of  Bruce.  As 
warriors,  they  long  held  the  distinguished  position  of  leading  the  van  of 

Catalogue  of  Scottish  Seals,  1850,  p.  48.  this  work  have  been  engraved  on  wood  l>v 
^\  ith  a  few  exceptions,  the  armorial  seals  in      Mr.  J.  M.  Corner  of  Edinburgh. 


the  royal  armies  in  battle,  and  as  senators,  of  giving  the  first  vote  in 
jiarliament,  and  also  of  carrying  the  crown  at  royal  coronations.  They  thus 
long  held  the  hereditary  right  of  doing  what  in  modern  times  was  ascribed 
to  one  great  member  of  another  illustrious  house,  who  was  said — 

"  To  shake  alike  the  senate  and  the  field." 

In  the  great  "  Douglas  Cause,"  to  be  afterwards  noticed,  frequent  reference 
is  made  to  the  historical  importance  of  the  Heroes  of  Douglas.  In  one  of  the 
pleadings  for  the  Duke  of  Hamilton  the  following  tribute  is  paid  to  them : 
In  the  earlier  periods  of  the  Scots  monarchy,  when  the  power  and  authoritv 
of  the  Kings  of  Scotland  was  feeble  and  weak,  the  noble  and  great  families 
were  the  chief  support  of  the  crown  against  intestine  rebellions,  and  the 
bulwark  of  the  state  against  foreign  invasions.  The  house  of  Douglas  stood 
in  the  front  rank  of  these  distinguished  families,  possessed  of  a  great  estate, 
extensive  territories  and  numerous  dependencies.  It  was  closely  connected 
with  the  royal  family  by  frequent  intermarriages,  and  produced  a  series  of 
heroes  whose  gallant  and  martial  achievements  in  the  service  of  their  country, 
however  fatal  upon  many  occasions  to  themselves,  has  stamped  upon  the 
minds  of  all  ranks  and  degrees  of  persons  indelible  characters  of  esteem, 
respect  and  veneration,  which  neither  length  of  time,  nor  the  degeneracy  of 
later  ages,  have  been  able  to  efface.^ 

Without  anticipating  the  detailed  memoirs  of  the  successive  representa- 
tives of  the  Houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus,  which  are  related  in  this  and 
the  Second  Volume,  a  slight  glance  may  here  be  taken  at  the  more  pro- 
minent members. 

"•  Information  for  George  James,  Duke  of  Hamilton  and  Brandon,  dated  ISth  April  1762. 
Vol.  ii.  of  Printed  Papers. 



Tlie  heroic  deeds  of  the  Douglases  inspired  the  muse  of  Barbour,  in 
whose  great  poem  of  "The  Bruce,"  Sir  James  of  Douglas,  the  "Good  Sir 
James,"  is  constantly  referred  to  as  the  "doughty  Douglas."^  This  was 
no  mere  alliteration,  but  a  description  of  the  character  of  one  who  was  the 
greatest  soldier  of  his  age,  and  who  gained  more  battles  than  any  other 
commander  of  his  time. 

He  is  reputed  to  have  been  engaged  in  seventy  battles,  and  to  have  been 
victorious  in  all  except  thirteen.  Sir  Walter  Scott,  in  his  account  of  the 
personal  combat  between  Sir  James  Douglas  and  Sir  John  de  Walton,  the 
famous  English  knight,  says  that  the  number  of  conquests  in  single  combats 
achieved  by  the  Douglas  in  these  wars  was  so  great  as  to  make  it  doubtful 
whether  he  was  not  in  personal  strength  and  skill  superior  even  to  Bruce  him- 
self, and  he  was  at  least  acknowledged  as  nearly  his  equal  in  the  art  of  war. 

Such  was  the  influence  of  his  name,  not  only  in  his  own  country,  but 
throughout  England,  and  such  awe  had  his  achievements  inspired  amongst 
the  old  enemies  of  his  country,  that  English  mothers  are  said  to  have  quieted 
their  children  by  the  mere  threat  of  bringing  upon  them  the  Black  Douglas. 
This  hero  who  was  thus  dreaded  abroad,  was  beloved  and  trusted  in  his  ow-n 
country.  His  brilliant  achievements  for  his  sovereign  were  rewarded  by 
.:n-ants  of  many  lands,  which  along  with  the  original  Douglas  territory,  formed 
a  vast  estate.  One  w^rit  known  as  the  Emerald  Charter  is  unique.  It  was 
so  called  from  the  fact  of  King  Bobert  having,  in  token  of  investiture  in 
tiie  piivileges  conferred  by  the  charter,  with  his  own  hand  placed  a  ring  con- 
taining an  emerald  stone  on  the  finger  of  Douglas,  to  abide  as  a  memorial. 
Xeither  that  ring,  nor  the  original  charter  with  which  it  was  associated,  is 
The  same  designation  of  "  doughty  Lindsay  in  his  poems  specially  refers  to  the 
f)ouglas"  is  frequently  used  in  the  Buke  of  "docbtie  Erlis  of  Dowglass."  [Works,  vol.  i. 
the     Howlat    by    Holland,    and    Sir    David       p.  3I9.J 



known  to  «i.t.     But  the  ter„,s  of  the  grant  are  asc^tained  fro^^he  reoo,., 
of  die  Great  Seal  of  Bruce. 

The  n^emoir  of  this  great  warrior  r.  gi.en  in  a  subsequent  chapter.  an,l 

men  ron  nray    ere  be  n.acle  only  of  the  dying  bequest  by  his  rova,  nLter  of 

ns   I.eart   to  be  carried  to   the  Holy  Sep„,cl,re.      That   sacral   trust  was 

farth  „lly  undertaken,  but  at  the  cost  of  the  life  of  the  courageous  Dou^la. 

-ho  fought  w,th  a  heroism  which  was  truly  in  the  spirit  of  the  words-  '      ' 

"  Like  Douglas  conquer,  or  like  Douglas  die." 

The  character  which  Holland,  the  author  of  the  "  Buke  of  the  Howlat  ■' 
applies  to  the  whole  race  of  Douglas— 

"  0  Douglas.  0  Douglas,  tendir  and  trewe  !  " 
has  been   deemed   specially  applicable  to  the  "Good  .Sir  Jame. »  who  i. 
celebrated  by  the  same  writer  as   "tenderest  and  deir"   to   Bruce  in  his 
greatest  need.^ 

In  the  progress  of  the  present  work  an  interesting  fact  has  been  disclosed 
m  reference  to  Sir  James  Dougla.s.     In  all  former  histories  of  hin,  it  has 
been  stated  that  he  had  no  legitrn.ate  issue,  but  only  one  natural  son  who 
became  the  third  Eal-1  of  Douglas  and  was  himself  a  noted    hero      li  ha. 
now  been  ascertained  that   Sir  James  was   succeeded  in  his  estates  bv   ^ 
egrtrmate  son.  Willian.  Douglas,  who,  however,  drd  not  Ion.  survive 'his 
father,  having  been  killed  at  Haiidon  Hill  in  1333.     Another  hiterestin.  1.,  t 
has  been  ascertained  in  reference  to  Hugh  Douglas,  the  immciiate  voun-^er 
brother  of  Sir  Jan,es,  and  the  successor  of  him  and  his  sou  William  in  The 
IJouglas  estates.     In  previous  liistories  the  position  of  Hu,h  Do„.-d,s  has 
been  misunderstood.     He  has  been  supposed  to  have  been  w«,k  ,„  .mud  and 

1,1V  en  to  the  Duugkbes  as  an  armorial  bear- 

VALOUR  OF  TUE  DOUGLASES.,  as  he  did  not  appear  in  arms  with  his  relatives.  This  is  now  explained 
liy  his  having  become  a  priest,  which  prevented  his  joining  in  warfare. 
His  interesting  armorial  seal  has  been  misread  by  heralds.  Instead  of  dis- 
playing a  knight  on  horseback,  as  represented  in  the  Catalogue  of  Scottish 
Seals,  it  is  a  human  heart  supported  by  a  unicorn.^ 

Several  instances  of  the  prowess  of  the  Douglases  are  given  by  their 
historian,  Godscroft.  AYilliam  Douglas,  Lord  of  Xithsdale,  a  grandson  of  Sir 
James,  was  possessed  of  great  physical  strength,  far  beyond  any  of  his  con- 
temporaries. Whomsoever  he  struck  once  with  mace,  sword,  or  spear,  the 
blow  carried  death  with  it,  and  never  required  to  be  repeated.  At  the  battle 
of  Otterburn,  James,  the  second  Earl  of  Douglas,  fought  with  a  huge  iron 
mace,  which  was  heavier  than  any  ordinary  man  could  wield,  and  dealt  death 
to  all  around.  Archibald,  Earl  of  Angus,  "  Bell  the  Cat,"  in  his  duel  with 
Spens  of  Kilspindie,  cut  off  his  thigh,  through  bone  and  all,  with  a  single 
stroke  of  his  sword. 

Sir  Archibald  Douglas,  the  youngest  brother  of  Sir  James,  possessed  many 
of  his  valorous  qualities,  and  as  shown  in  his  memoir,  he  became  regent  of 
Scotland  at  a  very  critical  period  of  its  history.  Sir  Archibald  Douglas  was 
lord  of  extensive  estates  througliout  different  districts  of  Scotland. 

AVilliam,  the  first  Earl  of  Douglas,  son  of  Sir  Archibald,  the  Eegent,  and 
nephew  of  the  good  Sir  James,  was  also  a  distinguished  warrior,  and  his 
'•xploits  at  Poitiers  gained  him  great  renown.  On  the  death  of  King  David 
Bruce,  Douglas  at  first  disputed  the  right  to  the  Scottish  throne  with  the  firsr 
of  the  Stewarts.     Through  his  power  and  influence  he  added  the  extensive 

Mr.  Riddell  noticed  this  seal,  which  he  seal,  and  he  does  not  appear  to  have  noticed 

says,    "though    not    entire,     has    the    heart  that  the  heart  was  sup])cirted  by  a  unicorn, 

uncrowned,  being  the  oldest  instance  of  that  Xor  does  he  give   the  legend    on  the    seal, 

charge    hitherto  discovered  in  the    family."  which    has    an     important    bearing    on    the 

[.Stewartiana,  p.  140,  note.]     This  is  the  only  hitherto  obscure  history  of  Hugh  Douglas, 
description  which  Mr.  Eiddell  <:ive3  of    the 


earldom  of  Mar  to  Ids  own  earldom  of  Douglas.  His  natural  son,  George 
Douglas,  inherited  the  ancient  earldom  of  Angus,  and  was  the  ancestor  of  the 
subsequent  Earls  of  Angus,  the  Marquises  of  Douglas,  the  Duke  of  Douglas, 
and  his  successors  in  the  Douglas  and  Angus  estates,  as  well  as  of  the 
Douglas  Dukes  of  Hamilton. 

James,  the  second  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar,  was  the  hero  of  Otterburn. 
He  was  mortally  wounded  in  that  sanguinary  conflict.  But  the  fact  was 
concealed.  The  Douglas  war-cry  was  raised  as  if  the  hero  himself  were 
leading  his  army  to  victory — 

"  And  Douglas  dead,  his  name  hath  won  the  field." 

He  was  the  ancestor  of  the  Douglases  of  Drumlanrig,  and  the  Dukes  of 
Queensberry,  and  of  the  family  of  Douglas  of  Cavers.  It  is  of  this  Earl  of 
Douglas  that  Burns  wTote — 

"  One  Douglas  lives  in  Home's  immortal  page, 
But  Douglases  were  heroes  every  age." 

An  interesting  fact  regarding  Sir  William  Douglas  of  Drumlanrig,  son  of 
the  hero  of  Otterburn,  is,  that  in  1412,  he  received  from  James  the  young 
Kinf^-  of  Scots,  then  a  prisoner  in  England,  a  charter  written  with  the  king's 
own  hand,  confirming  all  the  grantee's  lands,  Drumlanrig,  Hawick,  and 
Selkirk.      A  facsimile  of  this  charter,  dated  at  Croydon,  is  here  given.^ 

After  the  second  Earl  of  Douglas  fell  at  Otterburn,  his  body  was  conveyed 
to  ^lelrose  Abbey,  and  interred  there  with  gnreat  solemnity.  The  tombs 
of   the   Douglases  were  in  the  north  side    of  the  chancel,  the  aisles  and 

1  After  the  memoirs  of  William,  first  Earl  Mar,  with  ranking  next  after  the  earldom  of 

of  Douglas  and  Mar,  and  of  his  son  James,  Sutherland.     The  Act  also  reserves  to  Walter 

second  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar,  were  printed,  Henry,  Earl  of  Mar  and  Kellie,  the  honour  of 

the    Earldom  of    Mar    Eestitution  Act   was  Earl  of  Mar  created  by  Queen  Mary  in  favour 

passed  on  6th   August   ISS5.     It  restores  to  of  John  Lord  Erskiae  in  1565,  with  ranking 

John  Francis  Goodeve  Erskine  the  earldom  of  as  of  that  date. 
Mar,  as  held  by  Isabella  Douglas,  Countess  of 


the  diapels.  These  were  wantonly  destroyed  by  the  English  in  1544. 
The  sixth  Earl  of  Angus  resented  this  desecration,  and  inflicted  punishment 
upon  the  offenders  at  the  battle  of  Ancnim  Moor,  In  the  charter  of  donation 
by  "William,  first  Earl  of  Douglas,  to  the  abbot  and  convent  of  Melrose  of  the 
lands  of  Penangushope  and  Xether  Caldecleuch,  in  the  barony  of  Cavers,  for 
the  welfare  of  the  soul  of  Sir  William  of  Douglas  of  Lothian,  who  was  slain 
by  the  granter,  it  is  stated  that  the  body  of  Sir  William  rests  in  the  church 
of  ]Melrosc  before  the  altar  of  St.  Bridget  the  Virgin.^ 

The  successor  of  Earl  James  in  the  earldom  of  Douglas  was  his  kinsman 
Archibald,  Lord  of  Galloway,  who  appears  to  have  inherited  the  dark  swarthy 
features  of  his  father  Sir  James,  as  he  was  commonly  known  as  "  The  Grim  " 
or  the  Black  Earl  of  Douglas.  He  acquired  by  purchase  in  1372  the  earldom 
of  Wigtown  from  Thomas  Fleming,  who  was  unable  to  hold  it  on  account  of 
disputes  with  the  petty  chieftains  of  the  territory,  and  was  obliged  to 
surrender  the  earldom  to  Douglas,  figuring  afterwards  as  plain  Thomas 
Fleming,  "  alias  Come?  de  Wigton."  - 

By  his  marriage  with  the  heiress  of  Moray  of  Bothwell  the  third  Earl  of 
Douglas  added  the  barony  of  Bothwell  as  well  as  many  lands  in  Morayshire 
to  his  Douglas  and  Galloway  possessions.  When  King  Eobert  the  Third,  in 
the  year  1398,  created  his  eldest  son,  Prince  David,  Duke  of  Eothesay,  and 
his  brother  Piobert,  Earl  of  Fife,  Duke  of  Albany,  the  king  also  desired 
to  create  Sir  Archibald,  the  Black  Earl  of  Douglas,  a  Duke.  But  the 
Earl  declined  the  honour,  and  when  the  heralds  called  out  to  him  "  Schir 
Duk,  Schir  Duk,"  he  mockingly  replied  "  Schir  Drak,  Schir  Drak."  He 
would  only  accept  the  name  of  Earl,  which  was  an  ancient  dignity  in  Scot- 
land, while  that  of  Duke  was  only  then  created  for  the  first  time.^ 

The  Earl  of  Douglas,  however,  was  not  devoid  of  ambition.     He  arranged 

'  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  p.  19.  3  xim  Book  of  Pluscarden,  edited  by  Felix 

'  KegiatrumMagniSigilli.voLi.p.  114,Xo.5.        J.  H,  Skene,  ISSO,  vol.  ii.  p.  254. 
VOL.  I.  e 


for  the  marriage  of  his  daughter  Mary  to  David,  Duke  of  Rothesay,  Prince  of 
Scothmd,  and  of  his  eldest  son  to  the  daughter  of  the  king.  This  third  Earl 
was  also  a  good  friend  to  the  Church,  as  will  be  seen  from  his  memoir  in  a 
subsequent  chapter. 

Archibald,  fourth  Earl  of  Douglas  and  second  Lord  of  Galloway,  succeeded 
his  father,  the  third  Earl.  He  had  more  experience  than  success  in  warfare, 
and  was  popularly  called  "  Tyneman,"  owing  to  his  loss  of  many  battles.  But 
he  always  displayed  distinguished  bravery.  By  his  power  and  influence  he 
added  still  further  to  the  importance  of  his  family  both  in  his  own  country 
and  also  in  France.  The  Earl  acquired  the  Lordship  of  Annandale,  and  for 
services  rendered  to  Charles  the  Seventh  of  France,  was  created  Dl'KE  of 
TouRAlNE  in  that  kingdom.  He  was  also  made  Lieutenant-general  of  the 
French  forces.  This  was  on  the  eve  of  the  sanguinary  battle  of  Verneuil  in 
Normandy,  fought  in  the  year  1424.  The  Duke  and  his  second  son  James 
were  both  killed  in  the  battle,  and  their  bodies  were  interred  at  Tours,  the 
capital  of  his  duchy.^ 

The  subsequent  Earls  of  Douglas  and  Dukes  of  Touraine  were  prominent 
in  the  State,  though  less  publicly  distinguished  than  their  predecessors. 
Archibald,  fifth  Earl  of  Douglas,  besides  succeeding  to  the  dukedom  of 
Touraine,  also  acquired  the  title  of  Earl  of  LonguevUle  in  France.  William, 
the  sixth  Earl  of  Douglas  and  third  Duke  of  Touraine,  was  only  in  his  six- 
teenth year  when  he  succeeded  to  his  father,  the  second  Duke.     According  to 

^  It  is  this  Earl  of  Douglas  who  is  made  to  Lady  Mary  Douglas,   Duchess  of   Rothesay, 

figure  so  conspicuously  in  "The  Fair  Maid  of  Her  father  was  the  "Grim"  Earl  of  Douglas, 

Perth,"  as  the  father-in-law  of  Rothesay.     Sir  and  died  before  the  death  of  Rothesay.     The 

Walter  Scott,  however,  is  historically  inaccu-  Earl  of  the  romance  was   the   fourth   Earl, 

rate  in  that  fascinating  romance.     The  Earl  afterwards  Duke  of  Touraine,  who  was  the 

of  Douglas,  who  is  made  to  announce  to  the  brother,  not  the  father,   of    the  Duchess  of 

Duke  of  Albany  the  death  of  the  Duke  of  Rothesay. 
Rothesay,    is   represeuted   as    the    father   of 



Godscroft  he  imitated  royalty,  creating  knights,  holding  courts  like  parlia- 
ments, and  having  in  his  ordinary  train  a  thousand  horse.  The  name 
of  Doufjlas  was  then  so  great 

"  That  scarce  above  it  tower'd  the  royal  throne," 
but  their  greatness  created  jealousy  and  caused  their  ruin.  The  youn^^  Earl 
was  accused  of  regarding  himself  as  a  foreign  and  independent  prince,  and  of 
meditating  evil  against  his  country.  He  was  invited  to  the  castle  of  Edin- 
burgh by  Chancellor  Crichton,  and  after  a  mock  trial  was,  with  his  only 
brother,  David  Douglas,  beheaded  in  the  castle  on  24th  November  1440. 

On  the  death  of  the  sixth  Earl  the  titles  of  Duke  of  Touraine  and  Earl 
of  Longueville  both  passed  away  from  the  Douglases.  James  Douglas,  Earl 
of  Avondale  and  Lord  Balvany,  the  granduncle  of  the  sixth  Earl,  succeeded 
to  him  as  seventh  Earl  of  Douglas.  He  had,  in  1437,  been  created  Earl  of 
Avondale  in  his  own  right.  He  only  enjoyed  the  earldom  of  Douglas  for 
three  years,  as  he  died  in  1443.  He  was  popularly  called  "the  Gross," 
from  his  uncommon  corpulence. 

His  son,  William,  became  eighth  Earl  of  Douglas,  and  restored  the  power 
of  his  house  by  his  marriage  with  his  second  cousin.  Lady  Margaret  Douglas, 
"  the  Fair  Maid  of  Galloway."  She  was  the  only  daughter  of  Archibald, 
fifth  Earl  of  Douglas  and  second  Duke  of  Touraine.  This  Earl  William 
was  for  a  time  in  great  favour  and  influence  with  King  James  the  Second, 
and  became  Lieutenant-general  of  Scotland.  In  the  course  of  fourteen 
months — between  May  1450  and  July  1451 — he  received  the  large  number 
of  thirty-two  charters  from  King  James  the  Second  under  the  Great  Seal. 
These  charters,  although  they  included  great  earldoms,  regalities,  lordships, 
baronies,  lands,  castles,  forests,  burghs,  offices,  patronages,  etc.,  did  not 
actually  add  to  the  Earl's  possessions,  as  they  were  granted  on  his  own 
resignation  to  himself  and  a  series  of  heirs,  but  the  enumeration  of  these 
charters  shows  the  vast  territorial  possessions  of  this  Earl  of  Douglas.     In 


1452  the  Earl  became  involved  in  trouble  with  his  sovereign.  Under  an 
assurance  of  safety  he  was  invited  as  a  guest  to  Stirling  Castle,  wliere 
he  was  mortally  stabbed  by  the  king's  own  hand  in  an  apartment  still 
known  as  the  "  Douglas  room."  That  blow  from  the  royal  hand  was  fatal 
to  the  Earls  of  Douglas.  James,  the  ninth  Earl,  and  the  three  younger 
brothers  of  the  murdered  Earl  endeavoured  to  avenge  his  fate,  but  after  a 
brief  struggle,  the  Douglases  submitted  and  returned  to  their  allegiance  to 
the  king. 

The  reconciliation,  however,  was  only  a  hollow  truce.  The  murder  by 
the  king  rankled  in  the  minds  of  the  Douglases.  The  Earl  and  his  three 
brothers  still  harboured  feelings  of  revenge  for  the  cruel  fate  of  the  sixth 
and  eighth  Earls.  The  king,  however,  was  the  first  to  take  the  field,  and 
though  Douglas  mustered  an  army,  his  hesitation  to  fight  produced  defec- 
tion in  his  camp,  and  he  was  obliged  to  fiee.  His  brothers  were  defeated 
at  the  decisive  battle  of  Arkinholm  on  1st  May  1455.  One  of  them  was 
slain,  and  another  captured  and  beheaded.  The  Earl  of  Douglas  himself 
escaped  into  England,  where  he  was  received  into  favour  by  King  Edward 
the  Fourth,  and  invested  with  the  Order  of  the  Garter.  He  joined  the  Duke 
of  Albany  in  invading  Scotland  in  1484.  Douglas  was  captured,  and  brought 
into  the  presence  of  King  James  the  Third,  who  ordered  him  to  be  confined 
in  Lindores  Abbey.  He  submitted  to  become  a  monk,  retiring  from  the  royal 
presence  with  his  back  to  the  king,  who  was  the  son  of  the  murderer  of  his 
brother.  He  died  in  the  year  1488,  about  the  time  when  the  king  himself 
was  slain  at  Sauchieburn.  This  was  the  last  Earl  of  Douglas.  The  title 
had  been  enjoyed  by  the  family  for  ninety-eight  years,  being  an  average  of 
only  eleven  years  to  each  Earl.^ 

1  Tlda  frequent  change  in  the  succession  is  the  Douglas  family.  Between  1711  and  1810 
in  marked  contrast  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  — a  period  of  one  hundred  years — the  duke- 
dukedom  of  Queensberry  by  that  branch  of       dom  was  possessed  by  only  two  Dukes. 



The  Angus  Line  of  the  house  of  Douglas  was  also  an  illustrious  race,  and 
many  members  of  tliat  line  performed  distinguished  services  to  the  state  as 
regents,  chancellors,  statesmen,  and  warriors.  George  Douglas,  the  first  Earl 
of  Angus,  accompanied  his  kinsman,  the  fourth  Earl  of  Douglas,  to  the  battle 
of  Homildon  in  the  year  1402.  He  was  taken  prisoner,  and  died  of  the 
pestilence  in  the  same  year. 

His  son  William,  the  second  Earl  of  Angus,  was  employed  in  important 
embassies  to  England  between  the  years  1423  and  1430,  and  held  the  office 
of  "Warden  of  the  Middle  Marches.  He  was  in  command  at  the  battle  of 
Piperdean  in  the  year  1435,  and  gained  the  victory. 

George,  the  fourth  Earl  of  Angus,  was  guardian  of  the  East  Marches.  As 
warden  of  the  marches  he,  in  1455,  led  the  royal  forces  against  his  kinsmen, 
the  brothers  of  the  ninth  Earl  of  Douglas,  who  had  taken  up  arms  against 
the  king.  For  his  success  in  this  enterprise  Angus  was  rewarded  with  a  gift 
of  the  forfeited  estates  of  Douglas.  This  gave  rise  to  the  saying  that  the 
Eed  Douglases,  as  the  Angus  line  was  named,  had  swallowed  up  the  Black 
Douglases,  as  the  Douglas  line  was  called.  Thus  possessed  both  of  the 
Douglas  estates  and  of  the  earldom  of  Angus,  this  Earl  became  a  very  powerful 
nobleman,  and  was  known  as  the  "  Great  Earl,"  When  King  Henry  the  Sixth 
of  England  was  dispossessed  of  his  rule  by  King  Edward  the  Fourth,  and  took 
refuge  in  Scotland,  the  Earl  of  Angus  entered  into  an  important  indenture  with 
him  at  Edinburgh  on  the  22d  November  1462.  For  the  assistance  promised 
by  Angus,  King  Henry  engaged  to  create  him  a  Duke  of  England,  to  hold  to 
him  and  the  heirs-male  of  his  body  for  ever,  with  lands  north  of  the  Trent 
and  Humber  to  the  yearly  value  of  2000  merks  English,  and  that  within  a 
month  after  Henry  regained  possession  of  his  kingdom,  or  of  the  greater  part 
thereof.  That  indenture  is  still  preserved  with  the  signature  of  the  king 
affixed,  and  his  Great  Seal  appended,  which  he  had  carried  with  him  from 
England  to  Scotland.    But  Angus  died  before  the  promised  dukedom  could  be 


obtained.  This  was  the  second  instance  of  the  title  of  Duke  being  lost  to 
the  Douglas  family,  and  it  did  not  come  into  the  Angus  line  till  very  late 
in  their  history.^ 

The  eldest  son  of  the  fourth  Earl,  Archibald,  fifth  Earl  of  Angus,  and 
Chancellor  of  Scotland  from  1493  to  1498,  was  popularly  known  as  "Bell 
the  Cat."  This  appellation  was  derived  from  the  well-known  incident  con- 
nected with  the  despatch  of  the  favourites  of  King  James  the  Third  at  Lauder. 

This  Earl  accompanied  King  James  the  Fourth  on  his  fatal  expedition 
into  England.  Eemonstrating  with  the  king  against  his  mode  of  conducting 
the  advance  of  his  army,  the  king  taunted  Angus  with  being  afraid.  This 
affront  to  the  veteran  was  inexcusable,  and  Angus  left  the  field  in  sorrow, 
but  he  commanded  his  eldest  and  second  sons,  and  all  their  followers,  to 
continue  with  the  king.  They  fell  at  Elodden  with  200  Douglases.  The  Earl 
died  the  same  year  in  the  Priory  of  Whithorn.  Godscroft,  the  family  historian, 
describes  Angus,  and  praises  him  for  his  personal  virtues  and  accomplishments. 

In  Marmion,  tlie  author  is  not   satisfied   with    one  description  of  the 

personal  appearance  of  "  Bell  the  Cat."     He  recurs  to  his  hero  in  several 

stanzas : — 

"  His  giant  form,  like  ruin'd  tower, 

Though  full'n  its  muscles'  brawny  vaunt, 
Huge-boned,  and  tall,  and  grim,  and  gaunt, 
Seem'd  o'er  the  gaudy  scene  to  lower  : 
His  locks  and  beard,  in  silver  grew ; 
His  eyebrows  kept  their  sable  hue."^ 

*  This  fourth  Earl  of  Angus  commended  prayers  for  protection  against  the  darts  of  the 

himself  to  the  favour  of  the  Prior  and  con-  fierce  enemy,    and    after    death    be    happily 

vent  of  the  Abbey  of  Hexham.     In  letters  united  to  the  Author  of  Salvation.     Vol.  iu. 

dated  from  the  Chapter  House  of  Hexham,  of  this  work,  p.  82. 
13th  August  14.j6,  they  refer  to  the  devoted 

attachment  of  the  Earl  to  their  Abbey,  for  ^  Marmion,  by  Sir  Walter  Scott,  canto  v. 

which   he   should   be    remembered   iu   their  stanza  iv.  edition  1857,  p.  193. 


"  Beside  him  ancient  Angus  stood, 
Doffd  his  furr'd  gown,  and  sable  hood  : 
O'er  his  huge  form  and  visage  pale, 
He  wore  a  cap  and  shirt  of  mail ; 
And  lean'd  his  large  and  wrinkled  hand 
Upon  the  huge  and  sweeping  brand, 
Which  wont  of  yore,  in  battle  fray, 
His  foeman's  limbs  to  shred  away, 
As  wood-knife  lops  the  sapling  spray. 

He  seem'd  as,  from  the  tombs  around, 

Rising  at  judgment-day,  " 

Some  giant  Douglas  may  be  found 
In  all  his  old  array  ; 

So  pale  his  face,  so  huge  his  limb. 

So  old  his  arm,  his  look  so  grim."^ 

«  On  the  Earl's  cheek  the  flush  of  rage, 
O'ercame  the  ashen  hue  of  age  :  • 

Fierce  he  broke  forth — '  And  darest  thou  then 
To  beard  the  lion  in  his  den, 

The  Douglas  in  his  hall  1 
And  hopest  thou  hence  unscathed  to  go  ? — 
No,  by  Saint  Bride  of  Bothwell,  no  ! 
Up  drawbridge,  grooms  ! — what,  Warder,  ho  ! 

Let  the  portcullis  fall.'"^ 

Gavin  Douglas,  the  learned  Bishop  of  Dunkeld,  was  one  of  the  younger 
sons  of  "  Bell-the-Cat,"  and  Archibald  Douglas  of  Kilspindie  was  another. 

1  Manrnon,  by  Sir  Walter  Scott,  edition  of  the  defenceless  village  of  Douglas — that  the 
1857,  canto  vi.  stanza  xi.  pp.  216,  217.  ancient  Lords  of  Douglas   adhered  to  their 

2  Ibid.,  stanza  xiv.  p.  218.  The  "  im-  prejudices  against  fortifications,  and  their 
pregnable  Tantallon,"  so  well  sung  by  the  opinion  of  keeping  the  field,  quaintly  expressed 
gifted  poet  in  the  same  work,  and  the  other  in  the  well-known  proverb  of  the  family,  "It 
great  castles  held  by  the  Douglas  family,  are  is  better  to  hear  the  lark  sing  than  the  mouse 
rather  at  variance  with  Sir  Walter's  account  cheep."     Castle  Dangerous,  ed.  1833,  p.  480. 


The  latter  iu  his  youth  was  a  special  favourite  of  King  James  the  Fifth,  who 
familiarly  called  him  his  "  Greysteil."  But  losing  the  favour  of  his  sovereign, 
he  was  treated  with  that  harshness  which  the  king  meted  out  in  his  "  hasty 
wrath"  to  all  of  the  name  of  Douglas.  The  king's  cruelty  was  specially 
inflicted  on  a  granddaughter  of  "  Bell-the-Cat,"  Janet  Douglas,  Lady  Glamis. 
She  was  burnt  to  death  on  the  Castlehill  of  Edinburgh  as  if  she  had  been  a 
witch,  although  the  crime  of  witchcraft  was  not  even  laid  to  her  charge,  nor 
any  proof  offered  of  such  a  crime. 

For  his  services  to  the  Crown  the  fifth  Earl  of  Angus  received  from  James 
the  Third  and  James  the  Fourth,  kings  of  Scotland,  various  grants  of  lands. 
Among  these  were  the  lands  of  Crawford-Lindsay,  which  were  forfeited  by 
the  Earls  of  Crawford.  In  a  decreet-arbitral,  which  finally  adjusted  the  right 
of  Angus  to  those  lands,  it  was  provided  that  he  should  infeft  John,  Earl  of 
Crawford,  in  three  acres  of  the  lands  called  Stroroholme  Knowe,  in  Crawford- 
Lindsay,  for  the  reservation  and  keeping  of  his  style  of  the  earldom  of  Craw- 
ford. That  reservation  shows  how,  in  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  a 
connection  between  a  personal  peerage  of  an  ancient  date  and  the  land  from 
which  the  name  was  derived,  was  respected.^ 

The  grandson  of  "Bell-the-Cat"  became  his  successor  as  sixth  Earl  of 
Angus  in  1514.  In  the  same  year  he  married  Queen  Margaret,  widow  of 
King  James  the  Fourth.  Like  his  grandfather,  this  Earl  also  held  the  ofiice 
of  Chancellor,  and  for  a  time  the  chief  power  and  influence  in  the  state  were 
wielded  by  him  in  conjunction  with  his  younger  brother.  Sir  George  Douglas 
of  Pitteudriech,  who  was  a  very  able  and  experienced  statesman. 

Allusion  has  been  made  in  the  notice  of  the  third  Earl  of  Douglas  to  his 

1  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  p.  155.     This  fifth  appears  from  the  safe-conduct  by  Henry  the 

Earl  of  Angus  made  a  mark  in  the  history  of  Seventh,  in  1493,  to  the  Earl  to  travel  into 

Scotland.     Although  he  did  not  display  such  England  with  a  train  nut  exceeding  forty  per- 

a  royal  style  as  his  predecessor,  the  sixth  Earl  sons,  aud  an  equal  number  of  horses,  etc.  Ibid. 

of   Douglas,   he  had  no   mean  following,  as  p.  144. 


peculiar  refusal  of  tLe  title  of  Duke.  In  reference  to  that  dignity  a  similar 
story  is  told  of  Archibald,  sixth  Earl  of  Angus.  When  he  was  informed 
by  Queen  Mary  of  Guise,  then  regent,  of  her  intention  to  make  Huntly  a 
l)uke,  Angus  vowed  by  St.  Bride  of  Douglas,  "that  if  he  be  a  duke,  I 
will  be  a  drake."  This  threat  of  Angus  continuing  to  be  supreme  over 
Huntly,  even  should  he  be  raised  to  be  a  Duke,  intimidated  the  queen, 
and  diverted  her  from  her  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  intended  creation,  and 
it  was  not  till  centuries  afterwards  that  the  representatives  of  the  Angus  and 
Huntly  families  received  the  dignity  of  Dukes.  _-■        • 

The  sixth  Earl  of  Angus,  although  he  was  the  stepfather  of  King  James 
the  Fifth,  and  had  been  guardian  to  the  king  in  his  youth,  was  for  many 
years  cruelly  treated  by  the  king,  wlio  forfeited  his  titles  and  extensive 
estates,  and  banished  the  Earl  and  his  relatives  from  the  kingdom. 

The  Regent  Morton  was  a  Douglas  of  the  Angus  line,  being  the  younger 
son  of  Sir  George  Douglas,  brother  of  the  sixth  EarL  His  efforts  to  secure  the 
earldom  of  Angus  for  his  nephew  Archibald,  the  eighth  Earl,  were  successful, 
although  he  had  to  contend  against  the  powerful  influence  of  the  heir  of  line. 
Lady  Margaret  Douglas,  daughter  of  his  uncle,  the  sixth  Earl,  and  Countess 
of  Lennox.  Morton's  nephew  became  also,  in  1587,  Earl  of  Morton.  He  is 
known  in  history  as  the  Earl  of  Angus  and  Morton,  and  as  the  Good  Earh 
On  his  death,  without  surviving  male  issue,  the  Angus  title  devolved  on  the 
Glenbervie  branch  of  the  Douglases,  who  carried  on  the  line  of  descent.  It 
was  the  second  Earl  in  the  Glenbervie  line,  William,  the  tenth  Earl  of  Angus, 
who  commenced  the  history  of  the  houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus  at  the 
express  command  of  King  James  the  Sixth,  It  was  he  who  received  from 
King  James  the  Sixth  a  special  ratification  of  the  privileges  of  his  family, 
and  of  their  place  in  Parliament. 

The  eleventh  Earl  was  created  Marquis  of  Douglas  in  1633.  His  great- 
grandson  Archibald  was  third  Marquis  of  Douglas,     He  was  created  Duke  of 

VOL,  I.  / 


Douglas,  and  on  his  death  without  issue  the  elder  male  line  of  the  Earls  of 
Angus  carae  to  an  end.  Lady  Jane  Douglas  was  his  only  sister.  The  romantic 
story  of  her  chequered  life  is  told  in  a  subsequent  chapter  in  a  more  exhaus- 
tive form  than  in  any  previous  memoir.  Her  only  surviving  son  Archibald 
Douglas  succeeded  to  the  Douglas  estates  on  the  death  of  the  Duke,  after  a 
protracted  litigation,  well  known  as  the  great  "  Douglas  Cause,"  with  George 
James,  Duke  of  Hamilton,  then  a  minor,  who  claimed  them  as  the  collateral 
heir-male  of  the  Duke  of  Douglas.  Archibald  Douglas  of  Douglas  was,  in 
1790,  created  Baron  Douglas  of  Douglas  in  the  peerage  of  Great  Britain. 
His  present  successor  and  representative  in  the  estates  of  Douglas  and  Angus 
is  Charles  Alexander,  Earl  of  Home,  who  is  also  Baron  Douglas  of  Douglas,  a 
title  which  was  recreated  in  favour  of  his  father,  the  late  Earl  of  Home,  after 
the  extinction  of  the  former  title  by  the  death,  without  issue,  of  James,  the 
last  surviving  son  of  Archibald,  first  Baron  Douglas. 


While  the  houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus  were  famous  in  war  and  in  the 
state,  two  of  the  younger  members  were  distinguished  for  their  eminence 
in  the  church  and  in  literature.  So  early  as  the  second  known  generation 
of  the  Douglas  family,  Brice,  a  younger  son  of  William  of  Douglas,  first 
of  Douglas,  became  a  priest,  and  afterwards  Bishop  of  the  extensive  diocese 
of  Moray,  which  office  he  held  for  nearly  twenty  years,  between  1203 
and  1222. 

The  Angus  line  also  produced  an  eminent  and  learned  divine,  Gavin 
Douglas,  who  was  Bishop  of  Dunkeld  from  1516  to  1522.  He  became  even 
more  famous  as  a  poet,  being  author  of  the  "  Palice  of  Honour  "  and  "  King 
Hart,"  as  well  as  other  poems.  He  translated  the  iEneid  of  Virgil  into 
Scottish  verse.     It  is  the  greatest  of  his  poetic  productions.     Short  memoirs 


of  these  two  bishops  will  be  found  at  their  proper  dates  in  the  first  and 
second  volumes  of  this  work. 

In  "Marmion,"  Bell-tlie-Cat  is  made  to  say, — 

"  Thanks  to  Saint  Bothan,  son  of  mine, 
Save  Gawain,  ne'er  could  pen  a  line." 

]]ut  that  is  a  poet's  licence.  Three  at  least  of  the  sons  of  Bell-the-Cat,  as 
well  as  himself,  were  good  penmen,  as  appears  from  specimens  in  facsimile  in 
their  respective  memoirs.  In  addition  to  these  there  is  a  grant  by  "  Bell  the 
Cat"  to  David  Scott  of  Buccleuch,  of  the  castle  of  Hermitage,  dated  17th 
April  1472,  which  contains  the  signature  of  "  Archibalde,  Erl  of  Angus,"  as 
will  be  seen  from  the  facsimile  of  the  charter  here  given. 

Sir  Walter  Scott,  however,  was  as  happy  in  his  description  of  the  personal 
appearance  of  the  poetic  bishop,  as  he  was  in  the  delineation  of  his  father, 
already  quoted — 

"  Amid  that  dim  and  smoky  light, 
Chequering  the  silver  moonshine  bright, 

A  bishop  by  the  altar  stood, 

A  noble  lord  of  Douglas  blood, 
With  mitre  sheen  and  rocquet  white  ; 
Yet  showed  his  meek  and  thoughtful  eye 
But  Uttle  pride  of  prelacy  ; 
More  pleased  that  in  a  barbarous  age 
He  gave  rude  Scotland  Virgil's  page, 
Than  that  beneath  his  rule  he  held 
The  bishopric  of  fair  Duukeld."  ^ 

Both  the  houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus  were  frequently  allied  in  marriage 
with  the  royal  family  of  Scotland.     James,  the  second  Earl  of  Douglas  and 
^•lar,  married  the  Princess  Isabel,  eldest  daughter  of  King  Eobert  the  Second. 

^  Marmion,  by  Sir  Walter  Scott,  edition  1S57,  canto  vL  stanza  xi.  p.  216. 



The  gallant  "William  Douglas  of  Xithsdale  married  Egidia,  another  daughter 
of  King  Eobert  the  Second,  and  acquired  the  lordship  of  Nithsdale  as  a  mar- 
riage portion  with  his  wife.  He  was  a  son  of  the  third  Earl  of  Douglas,  and 
a  grandson  of  the  Good  Sir  James. 

Archibald,  the  fourth  Earl  of  Douglas,  married  the  Princess  ]\Iargaret, 
eldest  daughter  of  King  Robert  the  Third.  The  Lady  Mary  Douglas,  sister 
of  that  Earl,  married  Prince  David,  Duke  of  Rothesay.  George  Douglas,  the 
first  Earl  of  Angus,  married  the  Princess  j\Iary,  youngest  daughter  of  King 
Robert  the  Third.  After  the  death  of  Angus  the  Princess  Mary  married 
successively  other  three  husbands.  The  grandson  of  her  first  marriage,  James, 
third  Earl  of  Angus,  was  betrothed  to  the  Princess  Johanna,  daughter  of 
King  James  the  First. 

Archibald,  the  sixth  Earl  of  Angus,  married  the  Princess  Margaret  of 
England,  widow  of  King  James  the  Fourth.  The  only  child  of  that  marriage 
was  Lady  Margaret  Douglas,  who  was  tlie  mother  of  Henry,  Lord  Darnley, 
afterwards  King  of  Scotland,  as  the  husband  of  Queen  Mary.  From  that 
marriage  her  present  Majesty,  Queen  Victoria,  is  lineally  descended. 


The  power  and  influence  of  the  house  of  Douglas  may  be  estimated  by 
their  extensive  territorial  possessions.  These  territories  may  be  taken  at  two 
different  periods ;  one  in  the  time  of  William,  eighth  Earl  of  Douglas,  who 
succeeded  in  the  year  1443,  and  was  killed  by  King  James  the  Second,  in  the 
year  1452,  and  the  other  in  the  time  of  Archibald,  eighth  Earl  of  Angus,  who 
succeeded  in  1558  and  died  in  1588. 

Besides  the  lordship  of  Douglas,  extending  in  length  for  about  sixteen 
miles,  from  the  mountain  of  Tinto  on  the  east  to  the  hill  of  Cairntable 
on  the  west,  the  eighth  Earl  of  Douglas  possessed  several  other  earldoms 
regalities,  and  baronies,  in  eleven  counties  of  Scotland.     He  held  the  lands  of 



Fernie  and  Eiitherglen  in  the  county  of  Lanark,  with  the  barony  of  Abercorn 
uiinexed  to  the  earldom  of  Douglas  in  free  regality.  In  the  same  county  he  also 
possessed  the  baronies  of  Bothwell  and  Cormannock,  and  the  lands  of  Blair- 
niuiks,  Culter,  and  Crawford-john  ;  in  Ayrshire  the  lordship  of  Stewartou  and 
Duidop,  with  the  lands  of  Trabeath  ;  in  the  stewartry  of  Kirkcudbright  the 
lordship  of  Galloway  and  the  earldom  of  Wigtown;  in  Dumfriesshire  the 
lands  and  regalities  of  Eskdale  and  Stabilgorton  ;  in  Selkirkshire  the  forests 
of  Ettrick  and  Selkirk ;  in  Eoxburghshire  the  baronies  of  Sprouston,  Hawick, 
Bedrule,  and  Smailholm,  with  the  lands  of  Brondon ;  in  Berwickshire  the 
lordship  and  regality  of  Lauder,  with  the  lands  of  Brigham  and  Hassington  ; 
in  Peeblesshire  the  barony  of  Gleuquhim;  in  Haddingtonshire  the  barony  of 
Bolton ;  in  Linlithgowshire  the  lands  of  Culter  and  Ogleface,  the  half-lands 
of  Dundas  and  Echlin,  and  lands  in  Dalmeny  and  Queensferry  ;  and  in 
Aberdeenshire  the  barony  of  Aberdour,  with  the  castle  and  rock  of  Dundarg. 

Of  these  extensive  territories  the  eighth  Earl  of  Angus  appears  to  have  pos- 
sessed only  Douglasdale  and  Bothwell.  To  these,  however,  were  added  the  lands 
forming  the  great  earldom  of  Angus  and  the  large  barony  of  Crawford.  He  also 
succeeded  his  uncle,  the  Piegent  Morton,  in  his  title  and  territorial  possessions. 

At  one  time,  indeed,  in  the  zenith  of  their  greatness,  the  Douglases  might 
almost  have  travelled  on  their  own  lands  from  Garioch  in  the  north  of  Scot- 
land to  Galloway  in  the  south.  Even  at  the  present  day,  when  shorn  of  their 
former  extensive  territories  of  Galloway,  Annandale,  and  Nithsdale,  the 
Douglas  owners  of  the  Castles  of  Douglas  and  Drumlanrig  can  walk  or  ride 
to  and  from  those  castles  on  their  own  land  without  requiring  to  touch  on  the 
property  of  any  conterminous  owner.     The  distance  is  about  thirty  miles. 

One  of  the  few  remaining  Douglas  muniments  relating  to  William,  first 
Earl  of  Douglas,  which  has  been  preserved,  requires  special  notice :  It  is  a 



letter  of  protection  aLldressed  by  the  Earl  to  Sir  William  of  Gledstanes, 
kuight,  as  his  bailie  of  the  barony  of  Cavers,  charijing  him  to  defend  the 
abbot  and  convent  of  ^lelrose  in  their  freedoms  and  privileges,  as  lords  of 
the  lands  of  Riugwood,  within  that  barony.  The  letter  bears  date  at  ]\Ielro6e, 
on  the  24th  of  April  13G0.  It  is  written  in  the  French  language,  which  the 
lirst  Earl  of  Douglas  frequently  used,  having  been  educated  in  France.^ 

The  family  of  Gledstanes  of  Gledstanes,  like  that  of  the  Douglases,  was  con- 
nected with  the  county  of  Lanark  from  an  early  date.  Herbert  of  Gledstanes 
is  the  first  of  the  name  who  has  been  found  on  record.  The  Christian  name 
of  Herbert  was  a  very  common  one  in  the  subsequent  history  of  the  family. 
Herbert  swore  fealty  to  King  Edward  the  First  in  the  year  1296  for  lauds  in 
the  county  of  Lanark.  These  were,  no  doubt,  the  lands  of  Gledstanes  in  the 
parish  of  Liberton,  now  the  united  parish  of  Liberton  and  Quothquan. 

Besides  holding  the  important  office  of  bailie  under  the  first  Earl  of 
Douglas,  Sir  William  of  Gledstanes  was  associated  with  the  Earl  in  his 
military  exploits  in  France.  He  accompanied  the  Earl  to  that  country  in 
the  year  1356,  and  w^as  belted  a  knight  at  the  battle  of  Poitiers.- 

The  office  of  bailie  held  by  Sir  William  of  Gledstanes  under  the  first  Earl 
of  Douglas,  was  continued  in  the  family  of  Gledstanes  in  the  time  of  Archi- 
bald, fourth  Earl  of  Douglas,  afterwards  first  Duke  of  Touraine.  This 
appears  from  a  precept  which  was  granted  by  that  Earl  to  James  of  Gled- 
stanes on  the  -ith  November  1413.^  The  connection  between  the  Earls  of 
Douglas  and  the  family  of  Gledstanes,  indeed,  appears  to  have  lasted  as  loni? 
as  the  Earls  of  Douglas  themselves.  Forty  years  after  the  forfeiture  of  the 
ninth  Earl  and  his  brothers,  in  the  year  1455,  Hugh  Douglas,  dean  of  Brechin, 
who  was  son  of  Hugh  Douglas,  Earl  of  Ormond,  brother  of  the  last  Earl  of 

'  Vol.  iii.   of   this  work,  pp.   21,   22,   and  ^  Original  at  Floors  Castle.     The  date  of 

facsimile  of  the  letter  and  seal  there  given.  140.3   should   be    1413.     A  facsimile   of   the 

-  Fordun,  ed.  1S71,  vol.  i.  p.  377,  note.  Precept  is  here  given. 

;«=!W5>*^ifSf :  **«'«rS<>»«!»^^-!<"3»««S«?»l*«' 




Douglas,  entered  into  an  indenture  at  Edinburgh,  on  the  24th  January 
1490,  with  his  kinsman  Archibald,  fifth  Earl  of  Angus,  then  Chancellor  of 
Scotland,  and  best  known  as  "  Bell  the  Cat."  Amongst  other  matters  agreed 
ou  between  the  two  kinsmen,  the  dean  became  bound,  immediately  after 
entering  to  the  lands  of  Glenf[uholm,  Pettinane,  Gledstanes,  or  any  other 
lands  belonging  to  the  Earls  of  Douglas,  or  Earl  James,  Lord  Avondale,  or 
the  dean's  father,  the  Earl  of  Ormond,  in  the  shires  of  Lanark,  or  Peebles, 
or  elsewhere  in  Scotland,  to  resign  into  the  hands  of  the  king  the  fee  of  such 
lands  in  favour  of  the  Earl  of  Angus  and  his  heirs,  reserving  to  the  dean 
only  the  liferent  of  the  lands  resigned  till  he  obtained  promotion  to  a  dignity 
or  benefice  by  the  help  of  the  chancellor.^ 

George,  fourth  Earl  of  Angus,  had  obtained  from  the  crown  a  grant  of 
the  forfeited  estates  of  Douglas,  in  the  year  1457,  but  his  son  and  heir,  "  Bell 
the  Cat,"  may  have  had  difficulty  in  making  the  grant  efi'ectual,  in  so  far  as 
related  to  Gledstanes  and  the  other  two  landed  estates  mentioned  in  the  in- 
denture. The  chancellor,  therefore,  deals  with  his  cousin  the  dean  as  heir-male 
of  the  Earls  of  Douglas,  Avondale,  and  Ormond,  to  complete  his  feudal  title 
to  Gledstanes  and  the  other  lands,  and  thereafter  to  dispone  the  fee  to  Angus. 
We  know  from  other  records  that  Pettinaiu  belonged  to  the  Earl  of  Ormond 
at  the  time  of  his  forfeiture.  Portions  of  Pettinain  were  granted  to  other 
persons  than  the  Earl  of  xVngus,  and  "  Bell  the  Cat "  may  have  wished  to 
dispute  these  grants,  as  coming  in  place  of  the  Earls  of  Douglas,  Avondale, 
and  Ormond.  This  accounts  for  Angus  dealing  with  his  cousin  the  dean 
to  assist  him  in  recovering  the  lands  of  Gledstanes,  and  others. 

From  that  claim  of  the  Earl  of  Angus,  as  coming  in  place  of  the  Earls  of 

Douglas,  to  the  lands  of  Gledstanes  either  in  superiority  or  property,  it  may 

be  inferred  that  these  lands  had  originally  belonged  to  the  barons  of  Douglas 

along  with  their  other  Lanarkshire  estates,  and  been  granted  by  them  to 

1  Indenture,  vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  pp.  160,  161. 



Herbert  of  Gledstanes,  whose  descendants  continued  to  be  closely  connected 
officially  with  the  Earls  of  Douglas. 

The  descendants  of  Sir  William  of  Gledstanes  continued  to  make  a  figure 
on  the  Borders  for  many  generations  till  about  the  middle  uf  the  last  century. 
Their  principal  residence  was  Cocklaw,  a  castle  situated  in  the  parish  of 
Cavers,  in  Eoxburghshire,  while  their  lands  lay  in  the  adjoining  parish  of 
Kirkton,  and  also  in  the  parish  of  Manor,  in  Peeblesshire.  The  Gledstanes 
of  Cocklaw  were  also  known  by  the  territorial  designation  of  Gledstanes  of 
that  ilk. 

Another  branch  of  the  family  of  Gledstanes  was  also  known  as  of  that  ilk, 
and  latterly  of  Craigs  and  Kelwood,  or  Upper  Kelwood,  in  the  parish  and 
shire  of  Dumfries, — both  families  being  probably  descended  from  the  original 
stock  of  the  name  in  Lanarkshire. 

The  Gledstanes  of  Cocklaw  and  Craigs  failed  in  the  direct  male  line, 
and  came  to  be  represented  respectively  by  an  heiress  and  two  co-heiresses. 
Janet  Gledstanes,  the  heiress  of  Cocklaw,  died  unmarried  about  the  year  1734, 
and  the  property  was  sold  about  the  year  1741.  The  two  co-heiresses  of 
Craigs,  Agnes  and  Elizabeth  Gledstanes,  succeeded  their  father,  John  Gled- 
stanes, in  Craigs  and  Kelwood  about  the  year  1620. 

A  third  line  was  the  Gledstanes  of  Arthurshiel,  near  the  old  place  or 
castle  of  Gledstanes,  in  Lanarkshire.  The  first  of  the  Gledstanes  of  Arthur- 
shiel who  has  been  traced  was  William  Gledstanes,  who,  before  the  year  1565, 
was  Laird  of  Arthurshiel.  His  lineal  male  descendants  continued  as  owners 
of  that  property  for  many  generations,  until  William  Gledstanes  disposed  of 
it,  and  went  to  reside  in  the  town  of  Biggar  about  the  year  1679.  Sir  Thomas 
Gladstone,  Baronet,  of  Fasque,  in  the  county  of  Kincardine,  and  his  brother, 
the  Eight  Hon.  William  Ewart  Gladstone,  M.P.,  of  Hawarden,  are  descended 
in  the  direct  male  line  from  William  Gledstanes  of  Arthurshiel,  in  the  time 
of  Queen  Mary,  and  William  Gledstanes,  last  of  Arthurshiels  and  of  Biggar, 


who  was  their  great-great-grandfather.  Their  lather,  the  late  !Sir  John  Glad- 
stone, Baronet,  of  Fasque,  obtained  a  royal  licence  to  drop  the  final  letter  •» 
in  his  surname.  Previously  the  letter  e  in  Gled  had  been  changed  to  o ; 
and  Gladstone  is  now  the  prevailing  form  of  using  the  ancient  Scottish  name 
of  Gledstanes. 

The  connection  between  the  three  lines  of  the  Gledstanes  family  which 
have  now  been  noticed,  and  Herbert  of  Gledstanes  of  1296,  has  not  been 
ascertained.  But  it  is  probable  he  was  the  common  ancestor  of  all  those  lines 
of  which  that  of  Arthurshiel  alone  is  now  represented  by  male  descendants. 

Besides  the  main  lines  of  Douglas  and  Angus,  tliere  were  many  branches 
of  the  family  who  became  very  distinguished.     Although  it  is  not  within  the 
scope  of  the  present  work  to  give  a  detailed  history  of  these  branches,  they 
may  be  briefly  referred  to. 


Lord  William  Douglas,  second  surviving  son  of  William,  first  Marquis  of 
Douglas,  was  created  Earl  of  Selkirk.  He  married  the  Lady  Ann  Hamilton, 
who  was  Duchess  of  Hamilton  in  her  own  right,  and  he  was  then  created 
Duke  of  Hamilton  for  life.  He  was  the  direct  lineal  ancestor  of  the  present 
Duke  of  Hamilton,  who  is  thus  a  Douglas  in  the  male  line. 


The  Dukes,  Marquises,  and  Earls  of  Queensberry,  and  also  Dukes  of 
Dover,  Marquises  of  Beverley,  and  Earls  of  Eippon,  were  also  another  distin- 
guished branch  of  the  Douglas  family  which  rose  to  the  highest  rank.  Theii- 
ancestor  was  James,  second  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar,  who  was  the  hero  of 
Otterburn  in  1388.     He  left  two  illegitimate  sons.     One  of  them,  William 

VOL.  L  U 


Douglas  of  Dmmlanrig,  was  the  ancestor  of  the  Dukes  of  Queeusbeiry, 
who  are  now  represented  in  the  female  line  by  the  Duke  of  Buccleuch  and 
Queensberry,  while  the  Marquisate  of  Queensberry  is  inherited  by  the  heir- 
male,  John  Sholto^  Douglas,  the  eighth  and  present  Marquis.  The  other  son 
of  James,  second  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar,  was  the  ancestor  of  the  Douglases 
of  Cavers,  who  long  held  the  office  of  hereditary  Sheriff  of  Teviotdale. 

The  title  of  Earl  of  March,  which  was  created  in  Lord  William  Douglas, 
son  of  William,  first  Duke  of  Queensberry,  in  the  year  1697,  was  inherited 
by  his  grandson,  William,  third  Earl  of  March  and  Earl  of  Euglen,  who 
succeeded  as  fourth  Duke  of  Queensberry  in  1778.  He  had  thus  three 
peerages  in  his  person.  Dying  without  issue  in  December  1810,  the  title 
and  estates  of  March  were  inherited  by  Francis,  Earl  of  Wemyss  and  :March, 
grandfather  of  the  present  Earl  of  Wemyss  and  March. 

The  titles  of  Earl  of  Solway,  Viscount  Tibberis,  Baron  Douglas  of 
Lockerby,  Dalveen,  and  Thornhill,  which  were  created  in  the  person  of 
Charles  Douglas,  Earl  of  Drumlanrig,  in  the  year  170G,  merged  in  the  duke- 
dom of  Queensberry  in  1711,  and  became  extinct  on  the  death  of  the  Duke 
in  1778  without  surviving  male  issue. 

Besides  the  dignities  now  referred  to  as  created*  in  the  Douglas  family, 
there  were  also  the  peerages  of  Earl  of  Ormond,  Earl  of  Forfar  and  Lord 

1  The  uame  of  Sliolto,  stated  by  Goclscroft  Queensberry  ami  the  Earls  of  Morton   have 

to   have   been   the    founder  of   the  Douglas  adopted    the   name   of   Sholto  as   Christian 

family,  does  not  appear  to   have  been  con-  names.     The    only    commemoration   of    the 

tinned   either   in   the   line    of   the  Earls   of  fabulous  Sholto  connected  with  the  territory 

Douglas  or  of  the  Earls  of  Angus-at  least  of  Douglas  is  a  great  oak,  known  as"  Sholto's 

tiU  quite  recent  times.     This   is    not    what  Club."     It  stood,  a  remarkable  object,  where 

usually  occurs.     Respect  for  the  name  of  the  Douglas  Dale  was  bounded  by  several  scat- 

founder  of  a  great  family  generally  insures  tered  trees,  the  outskirts  of  the  forest  and 

that  his  Christian  name  at  least  occasionally  hill  country.    [Castle  Dangerous,  edition  1833, 

appears  when  he  has  a  long  line  of  descend-  p.  417.] 
ants.     Lately  the  families  of  the  Marquis  of 


Wiuidell,  Earl  of  Uumbartou  and  Lord  Ettrick,  Viscuuut  of  Belhaveii  mid 
Ivord  Mordington,  created  in  different  members  of  the  Angus  line.  Of 
these  dignities  the  only  one  now  subsisting  is  that  of  Earl  of  Selkirk,  which 
lately  merged  in  the  Duke  of  HamOton  as  the  heir-male  of  the  late  Dunbar 
James,  Earl  of  Selkirk.     Tiie  others  are  either  extinct  or  dormant. 


The  Earls  of  Morton  were  another  distinguished  branch  of  the  house  of 
Douglas.  Their  reputed  ancestor  was  Sir  Andrew  of  Douglas,  who  was  the 
younger  son  of  Sir  Archibald  of  Douglas,  eldest  son  of  William,  the  first 
known  Douglas  in  the  time  of  King  William  the  Lion.  Sir  Andrew  was 
the  great-grandfather  of  Sir  William  Douglas  of  Liddesdale,  commonly  called 
"  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale,"  and  "  the  flower  of  Chivalry."  He  was  the  first 
Douglas  who  acquired  the  baronies  of  DalJveith  and  Aberdour.  He  also 
obtained  a  gi-ant  of  the  earldom  of  Athole  in  1335,  but  only  held  it  for  about 
seven  years,  having  resigned  the  earldom  in  13-42.  The  Knight  of  Liddes- 
dale was  killed  by  his  kinsman  and  godson,  William,  first  Earl  of  Douglas, 
while  hunting  in  Ettrick  Forest,  an  episode  explained  in  the  memoir  of  the 
first  Earl  of  Douglas.  He  left  an  only  child,  Mary,  and  was  succeeded  by 
his  nephew,  Sir  James  Douglas  of  Dalkeith,  who  was  also  a  distinguished 

^  Mr.  lanes,  ia  his  preface  to  the  Cartulary  Mr.  Kiddell  lias,  at  great  length  and  with 

of  Moray,  refers  to  a  charter  granted  by  Sir  severity,  vindicated  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale 

William  Douglas  of    Liddesdale,   and  adds,  from   the   imputation  of   bastardy  made  by 

"The  granter,  I  sujjpose  to  be  the  bastard  Godscroft  and  Mr.  Innes.     He  says,  "  I  may 

son  of  good  Sir  James  Douglas  "  [p.  xxxviiij.  observe,  by  the  way,  that  all  mere  supposition 

This  ia  a  serious    mistake,   into  which   Mr.  should  be  entirely  banished  from  genealoL-y  : 

Innes  was  led  by  Godscroft,  whose  statement  it  ia  a  stem  and  impracticable  subject  to  deal 

he  should  have  tested,  when  he  styles  him  with,  neither  susceptible  of  fancy,  poetry,  nay 

rather  irreverently  "the  gossipping  chronicler  even  of  the  noblest  flights  of  the  imagination  " 

of  the  House  of  Douglas."  [Stewartiana,p.83],     The  learned  Ruddiman, 



The  testament  of  Sir  James  is  printed  in  the  Kegistrum  Honoris  de 
Morton.  It  is  one  of  the  oldest  known  wills  existing  in  Scotland,  and  bears 
evidence  that  Sir  James  had  a  refined  taste  for  books  in  several  branches  of 
literature,  including  law  and  romance. 

James  Douglas  of  Dalkeith,  a  successor  of  that  Sir  James,  was  created 
Eael  of  Moktox.  The  third  Earl  dying  without  male  issue  in  1553,  the 
earldom  of  Morton  was  inherited  by  the  husband  of  Lady  Elizabeth,  his  third 
daughter,  James  Douglas,  who  became  the  famous  Eegent  Morton.  He  was 
a  Douglas  of  the  Angus  line,  and  was  succeeded  by  his  nephew,  Archibald, 
eighth  Earl  of  Angus,  as  Earl  of  Morton,  as  already  explained.  The  eighth 
Earl  left  no  male  issue,  and  his  title  of  Earl  of  Morton  descended  to  Sir 
William  Douglas  of  Lochleven,  as  sixth  Earl,  who  was  the  ancestor  of  Sholto- 
George  Watson  Douglas,  the  present  Earl. 

A  writer  in  "  British  Family  Histories  "  thus  refers  to  the  greatness  of  the 
Douglases  : — "  In  the  long  course  of  years  from  the  defeat  of  the  English  till 
the  establishment  of  the  Eeformation,  what  a  part  the  Douglases  have  played  ! 
A  Douglas  received  the  last  words  of  Eobert  Bruce ;  a  Douglas  spoke  the 
epitaph  of  John  Knox.  They  were  celebrated  in  the  prose  of  Froissart,  and 
the  verse  of  Shakespeare.  They  have  been  sung  by  antique  Barbour,  and  by 
Walter  Scott,  by  the  minstrels  of  Otterburn,  and  by  Bobert  Burns.  Indeed, 
it  is  matter  of  general  consent  among  our  Scottish  neighbours  that  the 
Douglases  are  their  most  Olustrious  family."  ^ 

A  race  so  illustrious  gave  rise  to  the  couplet  quoted  by  Godscroft : — 

"  So  many,  so  good  as  of  the  Douglases  have  been, 
Of  one  surname  were  ne'er  in  Scotland  seen." 

in  his  edition  of  Godscroft"s  History  in  1743,  but   son    lawful   to    Sir  James    Douglas  de 

noticed  the  mistake  as  to  Sir  William  Douglas,  Laudonia"  [vol.  i.  p.  115]. 
and  corrected  it  in  these  few  words  :   "  He  is  *  Quarterly  Keview,No.  cxcvi., March  1S56, 

not  son  to  Sir  James  the  Good  Lord  Douglas,  p.  iO-t. 



The  history  of  the  houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus  by  Hume  of  Godscroft, 
afterwards  to  be  noticed,  is  commonly  believed  to  be  the  only,  as  it  is  the 
best  known  account  of  the  family.  But  though  not  generally  known,  and 
only  casually  referred  to  by  Hume  of  Godscroft,  and  never  by  any  other  WTiter 
on  the  Douglas  family,  another  history  of  the  Earls  of  Douglas  was  written 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  appears  to  have  been  finished  in  the  year  1.5 GO. 
The  author  was  Sir  Eichard  Maitland  of  Lethington.  The  original  manu- 
script, or  a  contemporary  transcript,  is  preserved  in  the  charter-room  of  His 
Grace  the  Duke  of  Hamilton.  It  is  a  small  quarto  volume  consisting  of 
forty-six  leaves  written  in  a  careful  hand  of  the  sixteenth  century.  A  leaf 
or  two  at  the  beginning,  containing  the  first  part  of  the  Preface  or  Introduc- 
tion, is  now  missing.  The  volume  is  bound  in  parchment,  part  of  which 
seems  to  have  been  originally  used  for  the  engrossment  of  a  legal  instrument 
bearing  the  date  of  the  year  1607.  From  names  of  persons  which  have  been 
scribbled  on  the  blank  leaves  at  the  end  of  the  volume  it  appears  to  have  be- 
longed successively  to  different  owners.  The  crumpled  edges  of  the  leaves, 
and  the  tattered  binding,  indicate  that  the  volume  has  been  much  handled. 

Sir  Richard  Maitland,  the  author  of  that  history,  was  born  in  or  about  the 
year  1496,  and  was  the  eldest  son  of  William  Maitland  of  Lethington  and 
his  wife,  Martha  Seton,  daughter  of  George,  second  Lord  Setou.  Sir  Eichard 
was  educated  at  the  University  of  St.  Andrews,  and  became  an  accomplished 
^holar.  He  afterwards  studied  law  in  France.  He  was  appointed  an 
extraordinary  Lord  of  Session  in  the  year  1551.  About  nine  years  afterwards 
lie  had  the  misfortune  to  lose  his  eyesight,  but  his  blindness  did  not 
mcapacitate  him  for  business.  Sir  Eichard  died  on  the  20th  of  ^larch  1586, 
at  the  age  of  ninety  years.  Xotwithstanding  the  blindness  under  which  he 
suffered  for  a  long  period  of  his  life,  he  was  a  diligent  historical  writer  and 

^i^     ■  INTRODUCTION. 

poet,  as  well  as  collector  of  legal  decisious,  and  of  early  Scottish  poetry.  The 
best  of  his  own  poems  are  "  The  Blind  Barons  Comfort,"  and  a  "  BaUat 
of  the  Creation  of  the  World."  His  poems  were  printed  in  1830  for  the 
members  of  the  Maitland  Club,  which  was  named  after  him.  In  the  previous 
year,  the  club  had  printed  his  history  of  the  House  of  Setou. 

Sir  Eichard's  history  of  the  Douglas  family  begins  with  a  narration  of 
the  exploits  of  the  good  Sir  James,  chiefly  drawn  from  Barbour's  poem  of  the 
Bruce,  and  ends  with  James,  the  ninth  and    last  Earl  of  Douglas.     It  is 
prefaced  by  some  remarks  upon  the  parentage  of  Sir  James  Douglas,  and  his 
succession,  but  the  author  is  unable  to  solve  the  difficulties  he°  propounds. 
The  history  is  verj-  meagre,  and  contains  little  information  on  the  real  history 
of  the  Douglases.     It  has  been  quoted  in  the  present  work ;  but  the  refer- 
ences to  it  are  very  fe^^■.     In  a  concluding  paragraph  Sir  Eichard  excuses 
himself  for  not  writing  the  history  of  the  branches  of  the  Douglas  family 
at  the  same  time  as  the  Earls.     He  expresses  a  hope  to  be  able,  at  some 
future  time,  to  write  the  history  of  the  branches  also  ;  but  he  recommends 
that  each  branch  should  make  a  perfect  history  of  their  own  house.     "And 
so  ends,"  he  adds,  "  this  historye  of  that  noble  and  famous  hous  of  Dowglass 
and  Erlis  thairof,  coUectit  and  set  furthe  be  Sir  Eichard  Maitland,  of  Lething- 
ton,  Knycht,  ane  of  the  Senattouris  of  our  Souveranis  College  of  Justice, 
the  day  of  Anno  i^v'^lx."  ^ 

1  Mary  Maitland,  the  second  daughter  of  Sir  Scottish   Poems,   17S6,  vol.  i.   preface  p   vi  j 

Eichard,  appears  to  have  acted  as  his  amanu-  The   Poems   of   Sir   Richard   Maitland  were 

ens.s  after  his  blindness.     His  poetical  collec-  printed  in  the  year   lS30,  by  the  Maitland 

tions  are  contained  in  two  volumes.     One  is  a  Club,  under  the  editorial  care  of  Mr  Joseph 

quartern  her  handwriting.    On  the  first  page  Bain,    advocate.      Amongst    the     works    of 

IS  her  name,  and  the  date  1585.     Pinkerton  Sir  Richard    which   are   mentioned    in    the 

says  that  Sir  Richard  had  lost  his  sight  before  Preface,  his  History  of  the  Earls  of  Douglas 

1561  :  and  the  daughter,   writing  from   the  is   not  included,   being  unknown.     [Preface, 

diction  of  the  venerable  old  bard,  would  form  p.  Ixvi.] 
an  admirable  subject  for  painting.     [Ancient 



The  History  of  the  Douglas  family  by  David  Hume  uf  Godscroft  is  a 
much  more  elaborate  and  exhaustive  work  than  that  of  Sir  Iiichard  Maitland. 
As  already  mentioned,  the  fame  of  the  Douglases  had  impressed  the  youthful 
mind  of  King  James  the  Sixth,  whose  grandmother  was  a  Douglas,  and  in 
obedience  to  the  royal  wish,  the  tenth  Earl  of  Angus  began  a  history  of  the 
family.  He  was,  indeed,  so  identified  with  it  as  to  be  the  reputed  author  of 
"  A  Chronicle  of  the  House  of  Douglas."  ^  His  son,  the  eleventh  Earl,  states 
that  his  father  actually  drafted,  with  his  own  hand,  the  first  "  delineaments, 
instructions,  and  noates "  for  the  history.  But  the  tenth  Earl  did  not  live 
long  after  the  work  had  been  commenced,  and  died  many  years  before  it  was 
completed.  The  real  authorship  of  the  history,  as  we  now  know  it,  is  justly 
attributed  to  Godscroft,  to  whom  the  tenth  Earl  confided  the  work.  Gods- 
croft must  ever  be  remembered  as  the  historian  of  that  great  family,  to  whom 
he  showed  so  much  devoted  attachment,  both  as  a  relative  and  a  retainer. 

Godscroft's  own  personal  history,  so  far  as  it  is  known,  may  be  briefly 

stated.     He  was  born  in  or  about  the  year  1560,  and  appears  to  have  been 

the  third  son  of  David  Hume  of  Wedderburn,  and  his  wife,  Mariota  Johnstone, 

daughter  of  Andrew  Johnstone  of  Elphinstone."    Godscroft  inherited  the  blood 

1  Moule'a  Bibliotheca  Heraldica.      George       wlio  had  access  to  many  of  the  Charter-chests 

Crawfurd,  ia  his  Peerage  of  Scotland,  pub- 
lished in  1716,  states  that  the  Earl  of  Angus, 
"  from  the  Scots  history,  and  the  documents 
of  his  family,  wrote  a  chronicle  of  the  Dou- 
glasses,— a  much  more  elaborate  work  than 
that  put  out  in  the  year  1G44,  dedicated  to 
the  Marquis  of  Douglas."  [Peerage,  p.  105.] 
In  that  statement  Crawfurd  appears  to  have 
fallen  into  error.  Sir  Robert  Douglas  in  his 
Peerage  does  not  adopt  the  statement,  and 
Mr.  Wood  in  his  edition  of  Douglas  only 
mentions  it  in  a  modified  form.     Crawfurd, 

in  the  west  of  Scotland,  had  probably  seen 
the  bulky  MS.  History  of  Godscroft,  now  at 
Hamilton  Palace,  and  without  strict  examina- 
tion, had  hastily  inferred  that  it  was  a  separ- 
ate chronicle  of  the  Douglas  family  by  the 
Earl  of  Angus.  But  no  such  separate  chron- 
icle ia  known  to  exist,  although  diligent 
inquiry  has  been  made  for  it. 

2  Mr.  James,  Mr.  David,  and  John  Hume, 
as  brothers  -  german  to  George  Hume  of 
Wedderburn,  granted  discharges  to  him  for 



of  Douglas  from  his  grandmother,  Alison  IJouglas,  the  wife  of  David  Hume 
of  Wedderburn,  his  grandfather.  She  was  a  daughter  of  George,  Master  of 
Angus,  eldest  son  of  "  Bell  the  Cat."  The  name  of  David  Hume  is  entered  in 
the  Register  of  Students  at  the  University  of  St.  Andrews,  as  incorporated  in 
St.  Leonard's  College,  in  the  year  1578.  The  entry  probably  applies  to  our 
historian,  who  afterwards  took  the  territorial  designation  of  Godscroft  from 
a  small  property  of  that  name  situated  in  the  parish  of  St.  Bathans,  Ber- 
wickshire. It  now  forms  part  of  the  estates  of  Colonel  Milne-Home  of 
Wedderburn,  who  is  in  possession  of  the  title-deeds  of  Godscroft  so  far  back 
as  the  year  1589. 

The  lands  of  Godscroft  ^  were  held  in  feu  from  the  collegiate  church  of 
Dunglas,  and  the  provost  of  that  church,  with  consent  of  the  patron, 
Alexander,  Lord  Home,  granted,  on  2d  April  1589,  a  charter  uf  these  and 
other  lands,  to  Mr.  John  Home,  brother  to  George  Home  of  Wedderburu. 
Five  years  afterwards,  in  August  1594,  Mr.  John  Home  disponed  to  his 
brother  David  the  lands  of  Godscroft  and  Luckiesmill,  granting  on  the 
28th  of  the  following  September  a  formal  feudal  charter  of  these  lands  to 
David  Home  and  his  spouse,  Barbara  Johnstone,  daughter  of  James 
Johnstone  of  Elphinstone.  Thenceforward  David  Hume  was  designated  of 
Godscroft.  The  lands  continued  to  be  possessed  by  him  tUl  his  death,  in 
or  about  the  year  1632.  On  the  1st  March  of  that  year,  John  Hume,  as 
his  eldest  surviving  son,  renounced  his  claim  to  enter  heir  to  his  father, 
in  favour  of  Dame  Mary  Hume,  Lady  Arniston.-  On  the  29th  of  the  same 
month  of  March,  she  obtained  a  decree  of  adjudication,  adjudging  from  John 

their  provisions   under  their  fathers  testa- 
ment, dated  17th  June  and  20th  July  1589, 
and  both  recorded  in  the  Books  of  Council 
and  Session,  14th  January  1590.    [Vol.  iii.] 
^  The  natives  pronounce  the  name  Gowks- 

croft,  gowk  in  the  Scottish  language  being 
applied  to  the  Cuckoo.  Hume  sometimes 
styled  himself  Thcarjrius. 

^  She   appears   to   have  been    a   niece  of 



Huiue  the  lands  of  Godscroft  and  others.  These  lands  remained  in  the 
fiiniily  of  Dundas  of  Arniston  for  several  years,  and  were  acquired  before 
1725,  by  Mr.  Ninian  Home  of  Billie,  from  whom  they  appear  to  have 
descended  to  the  present  owner,  Colonel  Milne-Home. 

Godscroft  enjoyed  many  advantages  for  writing  his  Histor\^  About  the 
year  1582,  as  appears  from  his  own  work,  he  became  the  confidential  agent  or 
secretary  of  Archibald,  the  eighth  Earl  of  Angus  and  fifth  Earl  of  Morton. 
When,  at  a  later  date,  he  was  employed  by  William,  tenth  Earl  of  Angus. 
to  write  the  history  of  the  Douglases,  he  was  able  to  gather  many  traditions 
of  the  family,  and  had  full  access  to  their  muniments. 

As  the  first  "  delineamentis,  instructions,  and  noates  "  made  by  the  tenth 
Earl  for  the  history,  and  also  the  original  draft  of  the  work  as  completed  by 
Godscroft,  are  missing,  it  is  impossible  to  say  how  much  of  the  history  was 
written  by  the  Earl,  and  how  nmch  by  Godscroft.  But  the  work,  as  we  now 
know  it,  both  in  contemporary  manuscript  and  the  printed  edition,  bears  to 
be  written  by  Godscroft. 

A  copy  of  the  History  in  manuscript  is  still  preserved  at  Hamilton  Palace. 
It  appears  to  have  been  acquired  by  Lord  William  Douglas,  the  first  Douglas 
Duke  of  Hamilton.  A  sheet  of  holograph  notes  by  his  Grace  criticising  the 
history,  is  preserved  with  the  manuscript.  This  copy  forms  a  large  folio  volume 
bound  in  vellum,  and  is  divided  into  two  nearly  equal  parts — the  first  part,  re- 
lating to  the  Earls  of  Douglas,  contains  356  pages,  while  the  second  portion,  the 
history  of  the  Earls  of  Angus,  contains  341  pages.  Both  parts  together  form 
a  bulky  volume  of  697  folio  pages,  all  closely  written.  This  appears  to  be  the 
copy  which  the  eleventh  Earl  of  Angus  intended  to  be  printed  by  himself  and 
his  revising  assistant.  It  contains  many  additions  and  corrections  through- 
out holograph  of  the  Earl.  The  work  was  dedicated  by  Godscroft  to  that 
Earl,  and  by  him  rededicated  to  King  Charles  the  First.  The  copy  of  the 
letter  of  dedication  by  Godscroft,  which  is  in  the  Hamilton  copy  of  the  work, 

Vol.  I.  h 


is  addressed  to  the  eleventh  Earl  as  Marquis  of  Douglas,  and  subscribed 
"  David  Hume."  But  this  dedication  to  the  "  Marquis  "  is  an  anachronism, 
as  Godscroft  had  died  shortly  before  the  Earl  was  created  a  Marquis.^ 

The  exact  year  in  which  King  James  the  Sixth  expressed  his  wish  for  a 
history  of  the  Douglas  family  has  not  been  ascertained.  But  it  was  probably 
about  the  year  1595,  or  four  years  after  the  succession  of  the  tenth  Earl  to 
the  title.  The  work  was  probably  commenced  by  Godscroft  in  or  about  that 
year,  and  it  was  finished  during  the  lifetime  of  the  King,  who  is  referred  to 
in  the  preface  as  "  Now  happily  the  first  King  of  Great  Brittaine,  France 
and  Ireland."  But  although  the  history  was  thus  finished  in  manuscript 
before  the  year  1625,  in  which  King  James  died,  a  delay  of  six  years  occurred 
before  a  licence  was  obtained  in  1631  to  print  it,  and  a  further  delay  took 
place  before  the  work  was  printed  and  published  in  1644. 

The  following  letter  of  dedication  written  by  William,  eleventh  Earl  of 
Angus,  afterwards  Marquis  of  Douglas,  to  King  Charles  the  First,  explains 
the  origin  of  the  work.  The  letter  is  undated,  but  it  had  been  written  before 
the  17th  of  June  1633,  when  tlie  Earl  was  created  Marquis,  and  probably 
after  14th  September  1631,  when  a  licence  to  print  was  obtained. 

To  the  King's  roost  Excellent  Majestic,  Charles,  etc. 

It  will  please  yow,  sir,  the  king  your  father,  of  ever  blissed  memorie,  was  pleased 
to  give  ordour  vnto  my  lord  and  father  to  looke  into  his  evidentis  and  other  records, 
thereby  to  inforrae  his  Mtyestie  of  the  true  original!,  descent  and  pedegree  of  the  howse 
of  Dowglas  and  Anguss,  which  hath  the  honowr  to  haue  been  the  roote  and  stock  of 
his  royeall  progenitouris  vpon  the  father's  side  ;  which  direction  my  lord,  my  father, 
in  his  time  did  carefully  endeavour  (according  to  his  bounden  dutie)  to  performe,  by 
drawing  with  his  owne  hand  the  first  delineamentis,  instructions  and  noates  for  the 
penning  of  this  present  historie  ;  and  therefter.  by  recommending  the  more  paineful 
parte  of  the  exact  searching  and  setting  doun  particulars  by  waye  of  an  historical! 

*  Godscroft  was  also  the  author  of  a  His-       Abbotsford  Club  in  the  year  1839.     He  like- 
tory  of  the  House  of  Wedderburn  by  a  son       wise  wrote  several  poems, 
of    the   family,   which   was   printed  for  the 



iiarratiou  vnto  the  care  and  industrie  of  this  honest  and  learned  gentleman,  whose 
n;inie  is  here  prefixed  to  the  worke.  And  he  hauing  now  acquitted  himself  of  that 
charge  with  that  candour  which  well  befitted  a  faithfull  and  vnpartiall  wrj-ter,  he  was 
induced  by  his  owne  reasons  to  dedicate  his  labouris  vpon  this  subiect  vnto  me  (as  is 
apparent  by  his  subsequent  epistle).  But  I,  considering  that  the  first  motion  and 
occasion  of  raiseiiig  and  reviving  of  these  auncyent  worthies  from  the  dust  of  a  long 
and  obsolete  obliuion  proceeded  from  the  most  praiseworthy  and  generous  mynde  of 
your  royeall  father,  thought  it  most  reasonable  and  best  beseeming  me,  humbly  to 
surrender  vnto  his  late  Majestie  and  to  yourself  that  which  I  accounte  more  honour 
than  belougis  to  me,  where  any  of  your  princely  names  are  but  mentioned.  And 
therfore  I  do,  in  all  submission,  entreate  your  excellent  Majestie  to  be  graciously 
pleased  to  sufi'er  these  good  endeavouris  to  retume  back  again  vnto  that  princely  point 
where  thay  took  thare  first  beginning,  by  accepting  of  the  same  into  your  favourable 
protection  ;  which  I  do  presente  vnto  your  Majestie  with  my  verie  best  affections  and 
most  dutiful  service,  as  being  confident  that  your  -Majestie  will  no  les  refuse  at  some 
houres  of  leisure,  to  cast  a  favorable  eye  vpon  these  true  memoriallis  of  these  your 
princely  progenitouris,  than  your  royeall  father  did  to  heare  and  reade  with  applause 
certain  congratulatorye  Latin  verses,  wherewith  this  author  was  bold  to  entertaine  and 
Wellcome  his  late  Majestie  at  his  ioyefuU  retume  into  his  native  countree  from  Eng- 
land in  the  year  1616;  a  parte  of  which  verses  were  as  follows  :  "  Atque  hsec  inter 
tot  diademata,"  etc.^     And  Englished,  "  But,  sir,  desdaine  not,"  etc. 

Your  Majestie's  most  humble  and  most  obedient,  Anguss.- 

Another  letter,  or  rather  an  old  copy  of  a  letter,  is  bound  up  with  the 
manuscript  copy  of  the  History  which  is  at  Hamilton  Palace.  It  refers  to 
the  many  painful  years  in  which  the  author  had  laboured  on  the  work,  and 
his  great  anxiety  even  on  his  deathbed  to  have  the  work  published.  The 
followinac  is  the  letter  : — 

It  may  please  your  Majestie, 

This  learned  gentleman,  the  author  of  this  book,  haueing  often  in  his  life  t\Tne 
and  but  a  few  dayes  before  his  death,  earnestlie  entreated  (nay  coniured)  me  by  our 

^  The  congratulatory  poem  by  Godscroft  -  From  the  original  or  an  old  copy  letter 

here   referred   to   was   entitled,    "  Regi   suo       affixed  to  MS.  copy  of  Godscroft's  History  in 
gratidatio."  the  Advocates'  Library,  Edinburgh. 



long  contiuued  freudship  and  education  together,  and  for  my  own  name's  sake,  not 
to  suftcT  this  birth  (for  bringing  foorth  whereof  he  had  beene  in  labour  soe  manie 
painfull  yeares)  to  perish  and  be  smoothered  in  the  cradle  ;  which  vehement  desire  of 
the  dead,  and  last  testimonie  of  his  loue  and  confidence  in  me,  I  haue  beene  exceeding 
loth  to  disappoint  :  Tlierefore  after  diligent  pervseiug  of  the  same,  I  haue  by  the  good 
assistaunce  of  a  persounadge  of  speciall  note,  and  chieflie  interessed  in  the  bussines, 
done  my  best  to  bring  it  thus  to  light.  The  author  hath  withal  left  me  these  twoe 
subsequent  epistles  to  be  prefixed  theirevnto.  But  myself  haueing  thus  this  smale 
interesse  therein  (though  claymiug  nothing  of  it  but  the  faultes),  and  being  one  growne 
old  in  the  service  of  the  king  your  lyiajestie's  father,  of  ever  blessed  memorie,  and 
therethrough  haueing  been,  amongst  diuers  others,  an  eare-witness  that  his  late 
Majestie  gaue  the  first  occassion  to  this  research  by  his  expresse  comaundemente  to  the 
late  Earle  of  Angus  (William  the  4  that  died  at  Paris),^  whoe  accordinglie  set  downe 
the  first  grounds  thereof,  from  his  auncient  evidentes  and  other  recordes  ;  as  likewise 
haueing  the  honour  still  to  coutinewe  one  of  your  Highnes  owne  domesticks  withalh 
I  could  not  be  aunswerable  to  myself  in  duetie,  without  presenting  it  vnto  your 
excellent  Majestie  as  your  proper  due,  and  submissiuelie  peticcioning  your  gracious 
protection  to  this  posthume  orphan  that  dares  not  otherwise  venture  to  come  vppon 
the  stage,  and  vndergoe  the  curious  censure  of  the  world  :  Wherevppon,  when  your 
Majestie  shalbe  pleased  to  cast  your  fovourable  eye,  theare  may  be  scene  that  besydcs 
the  nomerous  race  of  your  royall  progenitours,  theise  alsoe  not  a  few  nor  to  be  con- 
temned worthies,  are  to  he  likewise  reckoned  in  that  list,  with  many  rare  examples  of 
vertue,  and  forceible  stirrings  vpp  to  generous  actions,  wliich  was  not  vnfitlie  expressed 
by  this  same  author  to  the  king,  your  Miijestie's  father,  in  souie  Latine  verses,  where- 
with he  welcomed  his  Majestie  at  his  la.>t  progresse  in  Scotland  in  anno  1617,  a  few 
lynes  whereof  are  sett  downe  on  the  other  syde  as  not  impertinent  to  this  purpose. 
Your  Majestie's  most  humble  and  most  obedient  servant, 

G.  D. 

The  writer  of  this  letter,  whom  Godscroft  thus  made  his  literary  executor, 
has  been  identified  as  .Sir  George  Douglas  of  Mordington,  a  grandson  of 
Sir  George  Douglas  of  Pittendriech,  who  was  brother  of  Archibald,  sixth  Earl 
of  Angus.  His  father  was  known  a.s  George  Douglas  of  Parkhead,  havino- 
married  ]\Iary  Douglas,  the  of  that  estate,  as  narrated  in  the  second 

•  This  refers  to  the  tenth  Earl  of  Angus,  father  of  the  tirst  Marquis  of  Douelaa. 


volume  of  tliis  work.i     Sir  George  Douglas  of  Mordington,  like  Godscroft, 
was  a  compauion  of  the  eighth  Earl  of  Angus  during  the  latter's  exile  in 
Kngland  in  1581,  and  also  in  his  adventures  during  1583.2    After  the  death 
of  that  Earl,  George  Douglas  entered  the  service  of  King  James  the  Sixth, 
its  appears  from  a  receipt  in  his  name  in  lo89.-^     He  continued  to  act  as  a 
Gentleman  of  the  Bed-Chamber  for  many  years,  probably  until  the  death  of 
King  James,  and  received  the  rank  of  knighthood.    Beside  the  principal  manu- 
script copy  of  Godscroft's  work,  already  noted,  there  is  at  Hamilton  Palace  a 
careful  manuscript  transcript  of  tlie  Angus  portion  of  it,  made  about  the  year 
1662  or  later.     On  a  blank  leaf  of  this  transcript  is  a  reference  to  Sir  George 
Douglas,  in  the  form  of  an  epitaph,  composed  by  himself  before  his  death. 
He  claims  that  he  "  did  familliarlie  converse  with  all  the  antient  worthies  of 
the  name  "  of  Douglas,  and  that  "  some  ingredients  he  put  in  the  charmes, 
that  maks  those  long-neglected  lords  reviwe."     Sir  George  Douglas  did  not 
long  survive  his  friend  Godscroft,  as  he  died  on  7th  September  163i,  and  he 
was  interred  in  St.  Bride's,  Douglas,  by  the  favour  of  the  Marquis  of  Douglas. 
Another  epitaph,  by  a  later  hand,  informs  us  that  he  was  a  great  lover  of  the 
muses,  who  are  represented  as  mourning  his  decease.^     Perhaps  he  aided  in 
contributing  the  curious  Latin  verses  which  appear  in  Godscroft's  History  at 
the  end  of  each  memoir. 

Godscroft  was,  in  his  capacity  of  secretary  and  confidential  agent,  in  con- 
stant correspondence  with  Archibald,  the  eighth  Earl  of  Angus,  who  died  in 
1588,  and  was  much  trusted  by  the  ninth,  tenth,  and  eleventh  Earls  of 
Angus.  But  notwithstanding  all  tliis  intimacy  with  these  four  successive 
Karls,  there  has  not  been  found  among  the  muniments  of  the  Douglas 
family  a  single  original  letter  of  their  laborious  historian.  His  correspon- 
dence may  have  perished  in  the  fire  which,  in  the  year  1758,  destroyed 

*  Pp.  168,  169.  -  3  VoL  iii.  of  this  work,  p.  294. 

*  Ihkl.  pp.  3.39,  348,  note.  4  ^js.  at  HamUton  Palace,  p.  326. 



Douglas  Castle  itself.  The  only  document  which  has  been  found  in  the 
Douglas  Charter-chest  relating  to  Godscroft  is  an  original  contract  entered 
into  at  Edinburgh  on  7th  December  1G26,  between  him  and  William, 
eleventh  Earl  of  Angus.  In  it  the  Earl  narrates  the  good,  true,  and  thankful 
services,  other  gratitudes,  pleasures,  and  good  deeds  done  by  Godscroft  to  him 
and  his  predecessors  in  time  bygone,  and  binds  himself  and  his  heirs  to  infeft 
Mr.  David  Hume  and  his  heirs,  by  charter  and  sasine,  in  the  lands  of  Wester 
Brockholes,  in  the  lordship  and  regality  of  Boncle  and  Preston,  and  shire 
of  Berwick.^  This  was  duly  done,  the  charter  bearing  date  7th  December 
1626.-  The  lands,  however,  were  granted  under  reversion  for  the  sum  of 
one  thousand  merks  Scots,  redeemable  at  the  Earl  of  Murray's  tomb  in  the 
Kirk  of  St.  Giles,  Edinburgh,  after  the  death  of  Mr.  David  Hume.  Part  of 
the  good  services  and  deeds  done  by  Godscroft  no  doubt  had  reference  to  his 
history  of  the  Douglas  family,  which  appears  to  have  been  completed  about 
the  time  that  the  contract  was  made.^ 

While  no  other  specimen  of  the  handwriting  of  Godscroft  has  been  found  in 
the  Douglas  Charter-chest,  a  discharge  written  and  subscribed  with  his  own 
hand  in  the  year  1616,  has  been  found  at  Castle  Menzies.  This  document, 
of  which  a  facsimile  is  here  given,  is  of  much  importance  as  proving  that 
manuscript  copies  of  Godscroft 's  History,  which  are  occasionally  offered  for 
sale  as  in  the  handwriting  of  the  author,  are  really  in  other  and  unknown 
handwritings.  The  terms  of  the  holograph  receipt  by  Godscroft  are  as 
follows : — 

^  CJontract  in  Douglas  Charter-chest. 

2  Douglas  cartulary,  ms.,  vol.  L  folio  112, 
in  the  Douglas  Charter-chest. 

3  An  earlier  notice,  in  the  fifteenth  century, 
of  these  lands  of  Brockholes  is  interesting,  as 
showing  the  form  then  in  use  of  annulling  an 
infeftment.      Lady     Elizabeth     Dmmmond, 

spouse  of  George,  Master  of  Angus,  on  6th 
August  1495,  proceeded  to  the  ground  of  the 
lands  of  Brockholes,  and  there  broke  a  wooden 
dish  in  token  of  breaking  a  sasine  of  the 
lands,  which  had  been  too  hastily  granted  to 
Peter  Carmichael.  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work, 
p.  14G. 


E^5»«A**^     /W**\       -if^o     -f'^*>v  ^<^>«S^  yi^^^      »r»»i^V«^  /  vjw*'_ 



I,  Mr.  David  Hwme  of  Godscroft,  grants  me  by  this  present  to  have  receved  from 
James  Nasmithe,  servitour  to  Sir  Alexander  Meinzes  of  that  ilk,  the  sowme  of  fourtie 
lib.  moneye  Scots  :  in  respect  qhuerof,  I,  as  curator  to  Gilbert  and  Anna  Jhonstoune, 
in  qhuais  name  I  have  recewed  the  said  sowrae,  as  for  a  terraes  annwell  of  ane 
obligatioun  maid  to  thair  wnqhuyll  mother,  qhuerto  thay  ar  assignayes,  continwes  the 
said  band  and  payment  therof  till  Mairtimes  next  to  cum  ;  renuncing  ail  peualtie  that 
mycht  ensew  on  the  non  payment  thairof  for  all  termes  past  :  Binding  and  oblisching 
me  to  warrand  this  present  acquittance  from  all  deadlye,  all  law.  Written  and  sub- 
scryvit  with  my  owen  hand:  At  Edinburgh,  the  23  of  Junij  1600  and  sextein  ; 
Befor  thir  witnes,  Jhon  Hwme  my  lawful!  soon  ;   Hew  Nisbet  in  Kimnierghame. 

D.   HUME.1 

The  earliest  and  latest  specimens  of  the  signature  of  Godscroft  which 
have  been  found  are  affixed  to  the  contract  as  to  the  lands  of  Godscroft 
dated  in  1594,  and  the  subsequent  contract  affecting  Brockholes,  dated 
in  1626.     The  following  are  facsimiles  of  the  respective  signatures  : — 


Bound  up  with  the  manuscript  copy  of  Godscroft 's  History  at  Hamilton 
is  "  A  Copie  of  the  Principall  Liscense  "  given  by  Archbishop  Spottiswoode 
to  print  the  work.     It  is  in  the  following  terms : — 

Wee  by  these  presentis  graunt  liscense  for  the  imprinting  the  Book  wryten  by 
Master  David  Hume  of  Godiscroft,  of  the  lives  and  descent  of  the  familie  of  Douglas, 
and  containing  in  it  nothing  contrarie  to  pietie  and  good  manners  :  And  being  profit- 
able to  stirr  vpp  the  posteritie  to  the  imitation  of  virtuous  and  noble  actes. 

Sic  subscribitur 
Dairsie,  14  September  1631.  Sanct  Androis. 

Advantage  was  not  taken  of  that  licence  to  print  the  book  in  the  lifetime 
of  the  author.     One  of  the  causes  of  delay  was  probably  the  death,,in  1634, 

'  Original  at  Castle  Menzies. 



of  Sir  George  Douglas,  who  appears  from  his  letter  above  quoted  to  have 
taken  great  interest  in  tlie  work.  But  the  manuscript  copy  which  has  been 
preserved  bears  many  traces  of  careful  preparation  for  the  press.  Throughout 
the  whole  of  it  there  are  many  additions  in  the  handwriting  of  the  first 
Marquis  of  Douglas.  The  death  of  Godscroft  appears  to  have  delayed  the 
printing,  although,  as  already  shown,  he  had  expressed  anxiety  on  the  subject 
only  a  few  days  before  his  death. 

The  original  title-page,  which  appears  to  have  been  written  by  the  author 
himself,  is  preserved  in  the  manuscript  copy  of  the  Douglas  part  of  the  work, 
in  the  Library  of  the  Faculty  of  Advocates,  Edinburgh.     It  is  as  follows : — 


And  Descent  of  the  most  noble 

And  jllustrous  farnilie,  and   name 

of  Douglas  : 

Conteyning  their  Lyfes,  and  valerous 

Actes  of  armes,  for  the  Defence 

And  glorie  of  the  Crowne 

of  Scotland. 

Collected  out  of  Histories,  publike 

Monuments,   Evidents  and   others  the 

Lyke  Records  of  Ancient  memorie, 

Of  the  Realme  of  Scotland  ; 

And  devyded  in  two   traitties 


Dauid  Hume  of  Gods-croft 


Douglas  by  Anagrame,  Al  so  gud. 

No  name,  no  Race,  no  pedegree,  nor  blood 

In  Albion  were  ere  scene,  Al  so  Good. 

The  second  or  Angus  part  of  the  history  was  first  printed,  but  not  until 
the  year  1643.  It  bears  the  following  fitle :  "The  Second  Part  of  the 
History  of  the  Douglasses,  containing  the  House  of  Angus.     By  Master  David 



I  S  T  O  R  Y 


O  U°G  LAS 



Written  hj  ci5MCaJier  Davip     Hume 


^c ::'^' 


Trinted  hy  E  van  Tyi>ei^,  Trinter  to 
-       fi?^  -^'^^>^  ^5^  Excellent  ^J\fajejlie^, 
.       I  (5  4  4. 



O  F        Th  E 





By Mafter  David  Hume  of  Godicroft. 


Printed  by   Evan    Tyler,    Trinter  to   the 

I\ings  mojl  Excellent  (iS\faje/iie.   1^45. 
_  -        — 


Himiu  of  Godscroft.  Edinburgh,  printed  by  Evan  Tyler,  printer  to  the 
King's  most  excellent  Majestie,  1643." 

The  first  or  Douglas  part  bears  the  date  of  1644,  with  the  following  title- 
page  :  "  The  History  of  the  Houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus,  written  by  Master 
Dav-id  Hume  of  Godscroft.  Edinburgh,  Printed  by  Evan  Tyler,  printer  to 
tlie  King's  most  excellent  Majestic,  1644."  Exact  facsimiles  of  these  two 
title-pages  are  here  given.  Neither  of  tlie  title-pages  are  in  the  revised  copy 
of  the  manuscript  history  at  Hamilton. 

Both  parts  of  the  work  were  published  in  one  folio  volume  in  the  year 
1644,  or  rather  printed  with  the  intention  of  being  published  in  that  year,  as 
the  publication  was  interrupted.  On  a  comparison  of  the  copy  prepared  for 
the  press  with  the  edition  tirst  printed,  it  appears  that  the  print  is  quite 
different  in  many  portions  from  the  revised  copy.  Many  parts  of  the  latter 
have  been  omitted  in  printing.  Mr.  John  Hume,  the  son,  and  Anna  Hume, 
the  daughter  of  Mr.  David  Hume  the  author,  incurred  the  expense  of  print- 
ing the  work  from  another  copy  which  may  have  been  inherited  from  their 
father.  Owing  to  the  careless  editing  and  extensive  abridging  of  the  manu- 
script, the  print  gives  only  an  imperfect  idea  of  Godscroft 's  work.  This  gave 
dissatisfaction  to  the  first  Marquis  of  Douglas  and  his  eldest  son  Archibald, 
Earl  of  Angus.  The  displeasure  of  the  ^Marquis  is  expressed  in  a  letter  dated 
25th  January  1644,  while  the  printing  was  proceeding,  in  which  he  states  his 
willingness  to  "  compone  "  with  the  editors,  to  pay  a  part  of  the  expense  of 
printing,  and  to  let  them  have  the  benefit  of  the  "  trew  richt  coppie."  ^ 

The  Earl  of  Angus,  eldest  son  of  the  Marquis,  being  then,  by  an  arrange- 
ment with  his  father,  in  possession  of  the  family  estate,  was  so  much  displeased 
^^ath  the  history  as  printed,  that  he  obtained  from  the  Privy  Council  of 
Scotland  an  injunction,  or  arrestment  as  it  is  called,  against  the  sale  of  the 

Vol.  iv.  of  this  work,  p.  252.  No.  241.  This  evidently  refera  to  the  copy  revised  by 
himself,  and  now  at  Hamilton. 

VOL.  r.  4 


work.  That  injunction  lasted  for  two  years,  after  which  an  arrangement  was 
come  to,  as  appears  from  the  following  order  of  the  Privy  Council  dated  30th 
July  16-16.  "The  Lords  of  Counsell  discharges  lieirby  the  arrestment  layd 
vpon  the  bookis  of  the  historic  of  Douglas  and  Angus  at  the  instance  of 
Archibald,  Lord  Angus,  to  the  effect  the  same  may  be  vended  and  sold  for 
the  vse  of  Anna  Home  and  Mr.  John  Home,  minister  at  Eccles,  at  whois 
charges  they  wer  printed."  ' 

Such  were  the  unfortunate  circumstances  which  attentled  the  publication 
of  the  great  life-labour  of  Godscroft.  Througliout  his  entire  work  he  displays 
the  most  devoted  loyalty  to  his  patrons,  and  he  extols  the  Douglases  as  the 
greatest  family  known  to  the  Avorld  either  in  ancient  or  modern  times.  He 
records  their  praises  under  four  principal  heads :  antiquity,  nobility,  great- 
ness, and  valour. 

Eecent  writers  have  differed  as  to  the  merits  of  the  work  of  Godscroft. 
Mr.  Tytler,  though  great  as  an  historian  himself,  seems  to  have  entertained 
as  much  prejudice  against  the  historian  of  the  Douglases  as  he  too  fre- 
quently displays  against  many  members  of  the  Douglas  family.  Of  Hume  he 
writes : — "  As  a  biographer  Hume  of  Godscroft  not  unfrequently  gives  us 
characteristic  traits  which  I  borrow  from  his  pages  when  they  bear  the  marks 
of  truth.  As  an  authentic  historian  no  one  who  has  compared  his  rambling 
eulogistic  story  with  contemporary  documents,  will  venture  to  c|uote  him." " 

A  writer  on  "  British  Family  Histories  "  gives  a  more  favourable  estimate 
of  the  work  of  Godscroft  in  the  following  notice  of  his  book  : — 

'• '  The  History  of  the  Houses   of  Douglas  and  Angus  '  ends  witli  the  death  of 

^  Reijist.  Secreti  Concilii — Decreta  MS.  H.M.  -  Mr.  Tytler's  History  of  Scotland,  third 
General  Eegister  House,  Edinburgh.  Anna  edition,  1S45,  vol.  iv.  pp.  3.3.3,  334,  note.  It 
Home  was  also  an  independent  authoress,  and  maybe  stated,  however,  in  justice  to  Gods- 
wrote  the  "Triumphs  of  Love,  Chastity,  and  croft,  that  Mr.  Tytler  never  saw  the  manu- 
Death,"  translated  from  Petrarch,  Edinburgh,  script,  which  is  much  suiierior  to  the  printed 
1644,  12  mo.  work. 


Archibaltl  the  eighth  Eaii  of  Augus,  a  friend  of  the  historiau's,  iu  1588.^  With  all  its 
defects,  occasional  exaggerations  iu  the  early  part-s,  and  here  and  there  a  genealogical 
error,  which  the  more  accurate  science  of  the  day  enables  us  to  correct,  and  in  spite  of 
a  certain  pedantic  tediousncis  and  prolixity,  this  book  of  Hume  of  Godscroft  still  remains 
an  excellent  specimen  of  its  class.  Antiquaries  esteem  it  as  a  good  general  authority  ; 
and  its  loyalty  of  spirit,  antique  dignity  of  style,  and  occasional  gleams  of  picturesque 
colour,  make  it  worthy  of  a  larger  number  of  readers  than  it  has  lately  found.  It  were 
to  be  wished  that  any  English  family  of  corresponding  rank  had  a  historj' of  correspond- 
ing excelleuce.  But  it  is  a  curious  circumstance,  that  while  England  is  a  tliousandfold 
richer  than  Scotland  in  antiquarian  literature — in  county  histories,  for  example,  those 
monuments  of  the  greatness  of  English  families — Scotland  has  produced  the  best 
family  histories  from  the  days  of  Godscroft  to  the  days  of  the  '  Lives  of  the 
Lindsays.'  "  - 

The  sale  of  Godscroft's  History  appears  to  have  been  unsuccessful.  The 
injunction  against  the  sale  for  two  years  probably  injured  the  market.  Suc- 
cessive attempts  appear  to  have  been  made  to  show  its  importance  by  an 
alteration  in  the  title-page.  The  first  of  these  alterations  was  in  the  year 
1648,  four  years  after  the  printing  of  the  work  was  completed,  and  two  years 
after  the  injunction  against  the  sale  of  it  had  been  withdrawn.  The  new 
title-page  of  1648  was  in  the  following  terms  :  "  The  History  of  the  House.< 
of  Douglas  and  Angus — wherein  are  discovered  the  most  remarkable  passages 
of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  from  the  year  7G7  to  the  reign  of  our  late  sover- 
aign  Lord  King  James  the  Sixth,  written  by  Master  David  Hume  of  Gods- 
croft. Edinburgh:  Printed  by  Evan  Tyler,  Printer  to  the  King's  ]\Iost 
Excellent  Majestic,  and  are  to  be  sold  by  T.  W.  at  the  King's  Arms,  in 
Paul's  Churchyard,  London,  1648." 

With  the  exception  of  that  new  title-page  no  other  portion  of  the  impres- 
sion of  1643  and  1644  was  altered  or  added  to,  though  the  addition  made  to 

'    Thia  refers  to  the   printed  edition— the  -  The  Quarterly  Review,  No.  cxvi.,  March 

M.i.  at  Hamilton  Palace  continues  the  work       1856,  p.  299. 
to  1611,  when  the  tenth  Earl  of  Angus  died. 


the  title-page  indicated  that  the  work  included  a  history  of  Scotland  from 
the  year  767  to  the  reign  of  King  James  the  Sixtli. 

Nine  years  after  the  new  title-page  of  1648  appeared,  another  title-page 
was  substituted  in  the  year  1657.  That  new  title  still  further  expanded  the 
idea  of  representing  the  work  as  a  general  history  of  Scotland,  in  the 
following  terms  : — "  A  Creneral  History  of  Scotland  from  the  year  7G7  to  the 
death  of  King  James  ;  containing  the  Principal  lievolutions  and  Transactions 
of  Church  and  State,  with  Political  Observations  and  Ptetlections  upon  the 
Same,  by  David  Hume  of  Godscroft.  London  :  Printed  for  Simon  Z^Iiller 
at  the  Starr  in  St.  Paul's  Churchyard,  1657."  The  title-page  of  the  Angus 
part  of  the  work,  with  the  date  of  1643,  remains  as  originally  printed,  as  well 
as  all  the  other  portions  of  the  book. 

These  successive  alterations  of  the  original  title-page  have  given  rise  to 
the  idea  that  each  alteration  was  attached  to  a  new  edition  of  the  entire  work, 
but  both  in  1648  and  1657  there  was  no  alteration  of  the  work  as  printed  in 
1643  and  1644,  with  the  exception  of  the  title-page  of  the  first  or  Douglas 
portion  of  the  book.  On  both  occasions  the  second  or  Angus  portion,  and  the 
original  title-page  of  1643,  remained  as  then  printed,  and  the  original  mistake 
of  ending  the  first  or  Douglas  part  of  the  book  with  page  211,  and  commenc- 
ing the  second  or  Angus  part  not  with  page  212  as  it  should  have  been,  in 
strict  order,  but  with  page  205,  was  still  continued  in  1648  and  1657. 

It  was  not  till  the  year  1743,  exactly  a  centur}-  from  the  date  of  printim; 
the  second  or  Angus  portion  of  Godscroft's  History,  that  a  second  edition 
was  published.  It  was  in  two  volumes  8vo.  It  bears  to  be  "  Printed  by 
T.  W.  and  T.  liuddiman,  for  L.  Hunter,  and  sold  by  him  and  other  Book- 
sellers in  Town."  [Edinburgh.}  It  is  dedicated  by  the  publisher  to  his 
Grace  Archibald,  Duke  and  Marquis  of  Douglas,  as  chief  of  the  illustrious 


liuuse  of  Douglas.  Pretixed  to  that  work  there  is  a  note  or  preface  by  "  The 
rublisher  to  the  EeaJer."  Although  it  is  in  the  name  of  the  publisher,  it  was 
probably  ^vTitten  by  the  printer,  the  learned  Thomas  Ruddiman.  It  is  interest- 
ing to  have  his  opinion  of  Godscroft  and  his  work  in  the  following  terms: — 

"  That  he  was  a  person  of  a  genius  equal  to  his  undertaking  ;  that  he  had  great 
ojtportunities,  being  permitted  to  see  the  charters  and  arciiives  of  the  family  ;  and 
that,  as  he  was  a  man  of  learning  and  sagacity,  he  has  made  the  best  use  of  these 
advantages.  He  has  also  been  well  versed  in  the  history  of  Scotland,  on  which  he 
makes  a  great  many  just  and  judicious  remarks.  And  really,  if  the  author  have  any 
faidt,  it  is  the  number  and  prolixity  of  his  reflexions  :  but  that  ouglit  not  so  much  to 
be  imputed  to  him  as  to  the  humour  of  the  times  in  which  he  wrote  ;  and  even  these 
are  made  in  such  a  munly  way,  so  full  of  strong  substantial  sense,  and  so  mixed  with 
ancient  Scottish  phrases  and  proverbs,  that  as  they  are  generally  solid  and  instructive, 
so  they  will  be  to  many  no  lesii  entertaining."  ■   ^ 

The  favourable  opinion  of  Godscroft  thus  expressed,  was  also  extended  by 
tin;  learned  grammarian  to  his  work,  as  follows  : — 

"  It  is,  indeed,  a  loss  to  the  publick  that  the  author  did  not  live  to  revise  his  work 
from  the  press  ;  and  the  editor  of  the  first  edition,  who  has  been  a  man  nowise  quali- 
fied for  that  business,  has  committed  innumerable  mistakes,  chiefly  by  his  endeavouring, 
in  many  places,  to  turn  the  Scottish  phrases  of  our  author,  which  he  very  ill  under- 
stood, into  the  English  of  the  times  wherein  he  lived.  He  has  hkewise  been  very 
neghgent  in  the  spelling  of  the  proper  names  of  persons  and  places,  many  of  which,  if  it 
had  not  been  for  the  author's  original  manuscript,  frequently,  I  confess,  not  very 
legible,  and  the  assistance  of  other  historians,  I  should  never  have  been  able  to  have 
rectified.  I  have  also  taken  upon  me  to  alter  some  old  obsolete  expressions  ;  but  in 
tbi.s  I  have  acted  very  sparingly." 

The  edition  of  1743  was  reprinted  in  1748,  also  in  two  volumes  Svo. 
In  tiie  edition  of  1748,  instead  of  the  woodcut  ornament  which  is  near  the 
I'Mjt  of  the  title-page  of  the  edition  of  1743,  there  is  substituted  the  words 
"The  Fourth  Edition."  There  is  also  in  one  of  the  volumes  of  the  edition  of 
1748  a  list  of  subscribers,  which  includes  the  name  of  the  Duke  of  Douglas 
tor  six  copies,  and  also  of  Lady  Jane  Douglas. 

Another  edition  of  Godscroft's  History  was  projected  in  the  year  1820 

Ixx  I  NT RO  DUCT  10  y. 

under  the  title  of  "  The  History  of  the  House  aud  Kace  of  Douglas  and 
Angus.  London,  printed  for  Mortimer  aud  ^VPLeod,  Aberdeen,  1820,"  8vo. 
It  contains  the  preface  of  L.  Hunter,  the  publisher,  or  Thomas  Ituddiniau. 
the  printer,  to  the  edition  of  1743;  also  the  original  preface  of  Godscroft. 
and  his  history  of  the  family  down  to  and  including  James  the  ninth  and 
last  Earl  of  Douglas,  but  not  the  Angus  branch. 

Among  the  Harleian  manuscripts  in  the  British  Museum  there  is  a 
manuscript  history  or  observations  on  Godscroft's  History  by  Mr.  Thomas 
Crawford.  This  manuscript  consists  of  two  distinct  works  :  Part  i.,  ff.  2-21^,  is 
paged  1-36  ;  Part  ii.,  ff.  22-9P,  is  folioed  1-70.  These  partsdiffer  but  little 
from  one  another  in  arrangement  or  narrative  of  events.  Both  commence  with 
the  origin  of  the  Douglases  in  767.  Part  i.  ends,  apparently  unfinished,  in 
1314,  while  Part  li.  is  continued  to  the  death  of  Archibald,  third  Earl,  in  1400. 
The  account  of  each  personage  is  given  in  a  separate  section.  Both  parts  are 
paraphrases,  but  with  numerous  variations,  and  possible  corrections  of  the 
first  one  hundred  and  fourteen  pages  of  Godscroft's  printed  History.  The 
variations  consist,  as  a  whole,  more  in  transpositions  of  sentences,  and  in 
phraseology,  than  in  contents.  The  handwriting  of  both  parts  is  very  similar, 
perhaps  the  same.  The  name  of  "  ;Mr.  Tli.  Crawford,  1645,"  is  written  on  the 
margin  of  the  first  folio  of  Part  II.,  and  occurs  again  at  the  end  in  a  difTerent 
hand.     The  date  of  the  manuscript  should  be  circa  1633-1645.^ 

In  the  year  1754  there  was  published  at  London,  in  Spanish  and  English, 
"  A  Synopsis  of  the  Genealogy  of  the  most  ancient  and  most  noble  family  of 
the  Brigantes  or  Douglas,  by  Peter  Pineda,  who  presents  this  work  to  tlie 
above-mentioned  family,  London,  1754,"  one  volume  8vo.  Peter  Pineda  had 
been  inspired  in  his  old  age  for  his  work  on  the  Douglases  by  Charles,  third 
Duke  of  Queensberry,  who,  he  says,  was  pleased  to  heap  favours  upon  hiiii. 
The  fabulous  origin  of  the  family  of  Douglas  as  related  by  Godscroft  sounds 

*  Information  by  Mr.  Ellis  of  the  British  Museum. 


iilinodt  like  truth  and  soberness  when  compared  with  thu  tables  of  Pineda. 
He  traces  the  Douglases  back  to  Gatlielus,  the  founder  of  the  Scottish 
monarchy,  and  Sayas,  the  founder  of  the  Biigautes,  Douglas  or  Angus,  which 
he  says,  is  one  and  the  same,  and  that  their  descent  can  be  deduced  for  above 
three  thousand  years  past.^  In  another  part  of  liis  work  Pineda  states  that 
one  of  the  four  governors  of  Scotland  in  the  year  605  was  the  famous 
(^^olenus,  grandfather  to  Sholto  Douglas.-  The  author  goes  far  beyond  Gods- 
iToft  in  antiquity.  But  his  work  is  a  very  poor  performance,  and  he  pleads 
an  excuse  on  account  of  his  age.^ 

After  the  final  judgment  of  the  Douglas  Cause  in  the  year  1769,  James 
Herd,  a  publisher  in  Edinburgh,  projected  "The  History  and  Martial 
Atchievements  of  the  Houses  of  Douglas,  Angus,  and  Queeusberry."  It  is 
dedicated  to  her  Grace,  Margaret,  Duchess  of  Douglas,  on  6th  April  1 796,  which 
appears  to  be  a  mistake  for  1769.  The  preface  to  this  work  consists  chiefly  of 
tlie  preface  by  Godscroft  to  his  History,  followed  by  extracts  from  Pineda 
al)out  Gathelus  and  Sayas  and  their  connection  with  Moses.  Then  follows  a 
partial  reprint  of  Godscroft's  history  down  to  and  including  a  portion  of  the 
memoir  of  the  Good  Sir  James  Douglas.  A  copy  of  Herd's  history  belonged 
to  the  late  Dr.  David  Laing,  who  inserted  a  note  stating  that  the  book  "  was 
never  completed.     It  breaks  off  with  page  75." 

In  addition  to  the  writers  above  noticed  who  have  professed  to  write 
special  histories  of  the  Douglas  family,  their  early  history  has  been  incidentally 
noticed  by  Mi-.  George  Chalmers,  Mr.  John  P.iddell,  Mr.  Cosmo  Innes,  Mr. 
Joseph  Ptobertson,  and  :\Ir.  G.  V.  Irving.-^ 

Preface,  page  xvii.  2  Pagg  Ixiii.  Stewartiana,    pp.    82-5  ;    Registrum    Episco- 

Pinedawaa  also  the  aiithorofaSpanishand  patua  Moraviensis,  pp.    xliv-xlvii  ;    Liber  S. 

Knglish  Grammar,  172G,  Spanish  and  Eiiglibli  Marie  de  Calchou,  vol.  i.  pp.  xxvii,   xxviii ; 

Dictionary,  1740,  Learning  Spanish  1751.  Origines  Parochiales   Scotise,  vol.   i.  pp.  152- 

'  Caledonia,  vol.  i.  pp.  579-584;  Remarks  IGO  ;    Upper  Ward  of  Lanarkshire,    vol.    li. 

npon    .Scotch     Peerage    Law,    pp.    174-178;  pp.  56-1.39. 


There  is  preserved  at  Bothwell  Castle  a  lar<,'e  tabular  genealogy  of  tlu- 
Douglas  family.     It  is  an  elaborate  work   in    three   sections.     The  centre 
portion,  which  is  as  large  as  the  other  two  combined,  contains  the  pedigrees 
of  the  main  lines  of  Douglas  and  Angus,  their  branches  of  Morton,  Queens- 
berry,  Cavers,  Mains  and  others,  and  several  of  the  families,  loyal  and  noble, 
with   whom  they  intermarried.     The  portion  on   the  right  side  ^ives  the 
pedigree  of  the  Scoti  of  Piacenza  in   Italy,  who  claim  descent  from  a  pre- 
historic member  of  the  Douglas  family.     The  portion  on  the  left  side  displa\  s 
the  descent  of  Cecily  Drury,  the  wife  of  Dr.  George  Douglas,  from  a  Xorman 
family  of  high  antiquity.     George  Douglas,  Doctor  of  Divinity,  who  married 
Cecily  Drury,  was  the  second  son  of  Sir  Eobert  Douglas  of  Glenbervie  and 
gi-andson  of  William,  ninth  Earl  of  Angus.     It  was  at  his  instance  and  cost 
that  this  genealogy  was  prepared  about  the  year  1636.     It  is  written  on 
parchment,  the  whole  presenting  a  surface  of  seven  feet  four  inches  in  lenf^th 
by  six  feet  in  height.     Armorial  shields  and  coats  of  arms  of  all  the  prominent 
members  of  the  families  traced  are  profusely  emblazoned  at  their  proper  places 
in  the  pedigree.     The  genealogies  are  presented  in  the  form  of  trees,  and  at 
the  foot  of  the  principal  one  of  Douglas,  stands  the  semi-nude  figure  of  a 
savage,  the  usual  Douglas  supporter,  and  which  is  offered  as  a  representation 
of  the  original  Sholto  Douglas.     There  are  also  equestrian  figures  of  the 
Good  Sir   James,  attired   as   a   Turk  with  uplifted  scimitar,  and  of  Kint: 
Eobert  the  Bruce.     Of  warriors  on  foot,  figures  are  given  of  the  Kni<dit  of 
Liddesdale   in   Highland   costume,   and  of  the  hero  of   Otterburu  in   full 
armour.     At  the  top  of  the  tree  are  given  blazons  of  the  later  Angus  crest,  the 
Salamander,  one  of  which  is  embosomed  in  a  Marquis's  coronet,  in  recoc^nition 
of  the  creation  of  William  as  Marquis  of  Douglas,  in  1633.     This  "enealof^v 
is,  doubtless,  "the  tree  of  the  famely  of  Douglas"  borrowed  by  William 
Douglas,  Duke  of  Hamilton,  in  1671  from  the  agent  of  the  Douglas  family.^ 

*  Vol.  iv.  of  thi.s  work,  (>.  2G9. 


Ill  ret'ereuce  to  this  pedigree  there  are  some  notes  or  memoranda  on  the 
nKinu.scrii»t  copy  of  Gndscroft's  history  at  Hamilton.  They  are  as  follows : 
"  To  consieler  if  it  be  titt  to  put  the  abreviated  pedegree  in  the  booke  :  and  if  it 
l)e  necessary  to  be  put,  to  place  it  betwixt  the  twoe  volmes  of  Douglas  and 
Angus.  Item,  to  send  for  Mr.  Awein,  whoe  was  the  contri\er  of  tree,  and  gar 
abbreviate  or  enlarge  it  according  to  your  owne  and  his  opinion  ;  and  if  it  be 
thought  nnnecessary  to  be  contained  in  the  booke,  it  must  then  be  delcate  in 
the  froutespice  of  the  booke,  because  you  may  see  mention  is  made  thereof 
there,  and  soe  refferr  all  to  the  great  tree,  which  was  made  by  Mr.  Awein — a 
remarkable  peece  which  must  be  soe  in  them  words  expressed  in  the  booke  : 
and  cawse  Mr.  Awyne  doe  anything  that  you  think  fitting  or  ueedfull  con- 
cerning the  tree."  Then  follows,  apparently  in  the  handwriting  of  William, 
the  eleventh  Earl  of  Angus,  the  statement,  "  Mr.  Awein  is  deid."  The  same 
hand  also  interlined  the  word  "  abreviated  "  before  the  word  "  pedegree  "  in 
the  second  line  of  this  quotation.  From  these  memoranda  it  is  apparent  tliat 
the  large  tabular  genealogy-  of  the  Douglas  family  at  Bothwell  Castle  was 
the  work  of  Mr.  Awein. 

About  the  time  that  Godscroft's  history  was  wTitten,  and  before  it  was 
published,  a  rivalry  arose  amongst  several  historical  families  in  Scotland  to 
obtain  precedence  by  tracing  themselves  back  to  remote  ancestors.  Part  of 
the  process  by  which  they  hoped  to  accomplish  this  purpose  was  by  serving 
themselves  heirs  to  these  ancestors.  Thus  in  1630,  "William,  Earl  of 
Menteith,  who  was  then  President  of  the  Council  in  Scotland,  was  served 
heir  to  Prince  David,  Earl  of  Strathern,  his  grandfather's  grandfather's 
great-grandfather's  grandfather  (ahavi  atari),  to  Malise,  Earl  of  Strathern, 
liis  great-grandfather's  grandfather's  grandfather  (jproari  ahavi),  and  to 
Patrick  Graham,  Earl  of  Strathern,  his  great-grandfather's  great-grandfather's 
grandfather  {proavi  atavi).  The  first  of  these  services,  to  David,  Earl 
of  Strathern,  ultimately  led  to  the  downfall  of  the  Earl  of  IMenteith.     He 

VOL.  r.  /.■ 

Ix  xi  V  I  NT  ROD  UC  riON. 

boasted  that  through  his  descent  from  that  prince  he  had  the  reddest  bluod 
in  Scothxnd,  and  this  unguarded  expression,  having  been  reported  to  the  king 
with  additions  such  as  that  the  Earl  said  he  shoukl  be  in  the  phace  of 
Charles  Stewart,  so  alarmed  the  king  that  it  led  to  the  disgrace  of  Menteith. 

William,  Earl  of  Angus,  afterwards  first  Marquis  of  Douglas,  who  took  so 
much  interest  in  Godscroft's  history,  obtained  nine  services  in  the  same  year, 
1630,  to  ■\Villiam,  Earl  of  Angus,  his  gi-andfather,  to  George,  first  Earl  of 
Ano-us,  his  great-grandfather's  grandfather's  grandfather  (proavi  ahari),  to 
Archibald,  eighth  Earl  of  Angus,  his  grandfather's  grandfather's  brother's 
great-grandson  {ahavi  'patri^i  lupotis),  to  George,  fourth  Earl  of  Angus,  his 
grandfather's  grandfather's  grandfather  (irifavi),  to  Archibald,  sixth  Earl 
of  Angus,  his  great-grandfather's  grandfather  {atavi),  to  George,  ^Master  of 
An"us  his  brother's  grandfather's  grandfather  {frafris  ahavi),  to  Lady 
Margaret  Stewart,  Countess  of  Angus,  his  grandfather's  grandfathers 
grandfather's  gi-andmother  (o.&«rirt:  a&ai-i),  to  Sir  William  Douglas  of  Braid- 
wood,  his  grandfather's  grandfather  (abavi),  and  to  Janet  Douglas,  lawful 
daughter  of  Archil)ald,  fifth  Earl  of  Angus,  immediate  younger  sister 
of  William  Douglas  of  Braidwood,    sister   of  his  gTandfather's   grandfather 

{sororis  abavi). 

The  Earl  of  Mar,  Earl  of  Argyll,  Earl  of  Sutherland,  and  other  noblemen 
and  trentlemen  also  obtained  similar  services  to  remote  ancestors  at  the  same 
time.  Long  litigations  ensued  on  the  question  of  precedency  between  the 
rival  Houses  of  Roxburgh  and  Lothian,  Glencairn  and  Eglinton,  Sutherlan.l 
and  Crawford,  and  others.  These  were  contested  with  nearly  as  much  keen- 
ness as  the  famous  controversy  between  the  families  of  Serope  and  Gmsvenor 
in  the  English  Court  of  Chivalry. 



The  celebrated  lawsuit  popularly  known  as  the  "  Dou<^la.-5  Cause,"  requires 
u  short  notice.  The  high  position  of  the  respective  litigants,  the  delicate 
nature  of  the  legal  questions  involved,  the  romantic  circumstances  attending 
the  birth  of  the  twin  sons  in  a  foreign  country,  as  well  as  the  large  patrimonial 
interest  involved,  all  coml>ined  to  render  this  one  of  the  most  celebrated  of 
legal  competitions.  It  attracted  the  attention  of  the  people  of  this  country 
more  than  any  private  cause  ever  did.  Indeed  it  drew  attention  and  excited 
a  keen  interest  througliout  Europe.  The  evidence  of  witnesses  was  appointed 
by  the  Court  of  Session  to  be  taken  at  I'aris,  Damartin,  Eheims,  Ehetell*', 
Sedan,  Liege,  Aix-hi-Chapelle,  Brussels,  Utrecht,  Rotterdam,  St.  Omer. 
Dunkirk,  Montreuil,  and  Abbeville,  besides  places  in  England  and  Scotland. 

The  legal  steps  which,  immediately  on  the  death  of  the  Duke  of  Douglas 
in  17G1,  were  taken  for  securing  the  estates  to  his  nephew,  Archibald  Stewart 
or  Douglas,  the  only  surviving  son  of  Lady  Jane  Douglas,  will  be  found  in 
the  memoir  of  Lord  Douglas.  A  year  later  his  estates  of  Douglas  and  Angus 
were  assailed  at  the  instance  of  the  Duke  of  Hamilton,  Lord  Douglas  Hamilton, 
his  brother,  and  Dunbar,  Earl  of  Selkirk,  as  heirs-male  collateral  of  the 
Duke  of  Douglas.  The  main  ground  on  which  they  sought  the  reduction  of 
the  feudal  title  of  Mr.  Douglas  was,  that  he  was  not  the  son  of  Lady  Jane 
Douglas.  The  litigation  in  the  Court  of  Session  continued  with  great  keen- 
ness on  both  sides  from  1761  till  17G7. 

At  one  stage  of  the  proceedings  Sir  John  Steuart,  father  of  Archibald 
Douglas,  was  called  into  the  Court  of  Session,  and  examined  by  the  Lords  for 
three  days,  the  14tli,  Ijth,  and  IGth  December  1762.  His  declarati(m  was 
t«aken  with  closed  doors.  Only  the  counsel  and  agents  for  the  parties,  with 
clerks  and  other  officers  of  Court  were  present,  and  even  they  were  expressly 


prohibited  to  take  any  notes  of  what  passed.  Although  he  was  then  sufleriiig 
from  sickness,  and  had  left  his  bed  to  attend  the  Court,  Sir  John  is  said 
to  have  behaved  throughout  the  wliole  of  liis  examination  with  extraordinary 
spirit  and  vivacity. 

The  printed  pleadings  and  proofs  extended  to  at  least  sevL'U  large  quarto 
volumes.  The  printed  evidence  of  the  witnesses  adduced  for  ]3oth  parties 
in  this  country  and  in  France  alone  exceeds  two  thousand  quarto  pages 
closely  printed.  The  memorials,  answers,  replies,  petitions,  etc.,  fill  several 
large  volumes.  Mr.  Burnet,  afterwards  Lord  ^Monboddo,  who  was  one  of  the 
counsel  for  Mr.  Douglas,  complained,  in  one  of  liis  printed  pleadings,  that  he 
was  literally  "  pelted  with  petitions "  on  behalf  of  the  Duke  of  Hamilton. 
The  following  account  shows  the  counsel  employed  on  botli  sides,  and  the 
days  which  each  counsel  occupied  in  the  debate: — 

On  the  1st  of  July,  a  few  days  after  the  cases  were  given  in,  the  hearing 
in  presence,  or  the  pleadings,  began.  First,  four  lawyers  spoke  for  the  pur- 
suers, viz.,  Mr.  Andrew  Crosbie,  on  Tuesday,  July  1  ;  Sir  Adam  Fergusson,  on 
"Wednesday  and  part  of  Thursday ;  Mr.  William  Nairn  began  on  Thursday 
and  ended  on  Friday ;  and  Mr.  John  Dalrymple  began  on  Friday  and  ended 
on  Saturday.  Then  four  lawyers  spuke  for  the  defender,  viz.,  Mr.  Alexander 
^Murray,  on  Tuesday,  July  8 ;  Mr.  Henry  Dundas,  solicitoi",  on  Wednesday 
and  Thursday ;  Mr.  Ptobert  Sinclair,  on  Friday ;  and  Mr.  David  Puie,-  on 
Tuesday,  July  15.  Two  lawyers  replied  for  the  pursuers,  viz..  Sir  John 
Steuart  of  Allanbauk,  on  Wednesday,  July  1 G,  and  Mr.  Andrew  Crosbie,  on 
Thursday.  Two  lawyers  duplied  for  the  defender,  viz.,  Mr.  Kobert  Macqueen, 
on  Friday,  July  18,  and  Mr.  James  Burnet,  on  Tuesday,  July  'I'l.  ]Mr.  Alex- 
ander Lockhart,  Dean  of  Faculty,  the  last  for  the  pursuers,  spoke  on  Wednes- 
day, Thursday,  Friday,  and  Tuesday,  and  ended  on  Wednesday,  July  30. 
Mr.  James  Montgomery,  the  Lord  Advocate,  the  last  for  the  defender,  spoke 
on  Thursday,  and  on  Friday,  August  1.     Which  ended  these  pleadings,  the 


longest,  'tis  believed,  that  ever  were  before  a  court  of  justice,  being,  in  all, 
Lwenty-one  days,  and  the  speeches  were  often  two,  sometimes  three  hours 
l(Uig.  The  Court  appointed  the  memorials  on  these  pleadings  to  be  given  in 
on  the  27th  of  September;  permitting  either  party  to  give  in  an  additional 
memorial  on  facts  only,  on  the  loth  of  October:  and  the  cause  to  be  advised 
on  the  2r)th  of  Xovember.' 

Other  contemporary  accounts  add  iVIr.  Thomas  Miller,  afterwards  Lord 
Justice-Clerk,  Sir  David  Dalrymple,  afterwards  Lord  Hailes,  ^Mr.  William 
Johnston  and  Mr.  Walter  Stewart  as  counsel  for  the  Duke  of  Hamilton  ; 
and  Mr.  Francis  TJarden,  Mr.  Islay  Campbell,  -Mr.  John  Pringle,  and  Mr. 
(yharles  Broun  as  counsel  for  Mr.  Douglas,  in  addition  to  those  above 

After  the  furmal  pleadings  had  been  concluded,  some  information  about 
two  of  the  important  witnesses  was  specially  brought  under  the  notice  of  the 
(Jourt  by  Mr.  Douglas.  These  witnesses  were  two  of  the  servant-maids  of  Lady 
Jane  Douglas.  The  Duke  of  Hamilton's  counsel  had  stated  that  one  of  them, 
Kflie  Caw,  was  a  young  girl  of  no  more  than  eighteen  years  of  age,  and  easily 
imposed  upon  as  to  Lady  Jane's  condition.  But  the  register  of  her  birth 
and  baptism  was  discovered,  which  showed  that  she  was  upwards  of  twenty- 
one  years  old.  Isabel  Walker,  the  other  servant,  was  twenty-nine  years  of 
■:»ge."  She  was  examined  a  second  time  on  23d  June  1767,  in  presence  of  the 
lords.  The  examination  was  chiefly  in  reference  to  the  condition  of  Lady 
Jane,  to  which  the  witness  had  previously  deponed.     She  was  again  recalled 

^  The  Scots  Magazine,   vol.   xxviii.   1766,  wards  of  £23,000  sterling.     It  was  fortunate 

l>-  415.  for  him  that  he  was   in   possession   of   the 

•  The  cost  of  such  an  array  of  counsel  was  estates  to  meet  such  heavy  annual  expendi- 

very  great.      The  accounts  of  the  law-agents  ture  on  a  single  law  plea.      The  costs  of  the 

•>f  Mr.  Douglas  have  been  preserved.     At  one  Duke  of  Hamilton  were  probably  similar  to 

^ta^je    of  the  case   his  own   costs    were    up-  those  of  Mr.  Douglas. 



before  the  lords  on  the  ibllowing  day.     On  these  two  occasions  her  deposi- 
tions appeared  to  be  very  distinct. 

The  judges  were  equally  divided  in  their  opinions,  and  by  the  casting- 
vote  of  Lord  President  I  )undas,  judgment  was  given  against  ^Nlr.  Douglas. 
During  the  litigation  public  opinion  was  much  dividc<l  on  the  (questions  at 
issue.  In  the  Douglas  district  the  people  were  unanimously  in  favour  of  :Mi'. 
Douglas,  while  in  the  country  of  the  Hamiltons  opiiuons  were  naturally  in 
their  favour.  The  same  feeling  prevailed  to  some  extent  in  the  metropolis. 
Each  party  had  their  partisans  there.  It  was  the  prevailing  topic  of  conver- 
sation, and  occa.sioned  disputes  and  wranglings  in  almost  every  company. 
High  and  low,  young  and  (dd,  male  and  female,  interested  themselves  in  this 
cause  with  a  warmth  equally  unprecedented  and  unaccountable.  The  plea- 
sures of  society  were  h.r  a  long  time  embittered  by  altercation,  and  whole 
evenings,  dedicated  to  cheerfulness,  were  spent  in  ridiculous  coutest.i  Lord 
Campbell  says  that  it  had  almost  led  to  a  civil  war  between  the  supporters  of 
the  opposite  sides,  and  in  England  had  e.Kcited  more  interest  than  any  que.<- 
tion  of  mere  private  riglit  had  done  before.- 

The  formal  decreet  of  the  Court  of  Session  was  dated  lotli  July  1  "67.  It 
extends  in  manuscript  to  ten  folio  volumes  containing  in  all  nine  thousand 
six  hundred  and  seventy-six  pages.^  The  adverse  judgment  was  appealed 
to  the  House  of  Lords,  where  it  was  fought  with  as  much,  if  not  greater 
keenness  than  in  the  Court  of  Session.  The  pleadings  of  counsel  in  the 
House  of  Lords  occupied  two  months,  January  and  February  1769.  Durimr 
the  pleadings  the  anxiety  of  the  Duchess  of  Douglas  was  intense.  .Mr. 
Douglas,  on  the  other  hand,  was  quite  composed. 

In  the  memoir  of  j\Ir.  Douglas,  in  the  second  volume  of  this  work,  allusion 

^  The  Scots  Magazine,  Nov.  1767,  vol.  xjcix.       vol.  v.  j».  2SG. 

'*•  ^^^-  ^  Original  Decreet  in  H.M.  Guifral  Regis 

*  Lives  of  the  Chancellors,   third  edition.        ter  House.  Eilinburcli. 


will  lie  fouiiil  to  the  duel  whicli  wus  fought  between  ]Mr.  Edward  Thuilow, 
iis  counsel  lor  Mr.  Douglas,  and  Mr.  Andrew  Stuart,  agent  for  the  Duke  of 
Hamilton.  Tliis  affair  of  honour  arose  from  remarks  made  by  Mr.  Thurluw 
in  (tpeuiug  the  case  for  ^Nlr.  Douglas  on  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Andrew  Stuart, 
who  felt  aggrieved,  and  sent  a  challenge  to  tight  next  morning.  Thurluw 
promised  the  desired  meeting,  but  not  until  he  had  completed  his  arguments 
in  favour  of  Mr.  Douglas.  After  the  hearing  was  concluded,  the  meetino 
t«>ok  place  on  the  morning  of  Sunday  the  14th  of  January  1769,  in  Hyde 
Park.  Having  discharged  pistols  at  ten  yards'  distance  without  effect,  they 
th-ew  their  swords,  but  the  seconds  interposed  and  put  an  end  to  the  affair. 
Mr.  Thurlow  is  said  to  have  advanced  and  stood  up  to  his  antagonist  "  like 
an  elephant."  On  his  way  to  tlie  tield  of  battle  he  stopped  to  eat  an  enor- 
mous breakfast  at  a  tavern  near  Hyde  Park  Uorner.^ 

The  Lord  Chancellor  and  Lord  Manstield  both  spoke  in  favour  of  Mr. 
Douglas.  Tlie  speech  of  the  Lord  Chancellor  referred  to  the  great  importance 
of  the  case  in  the  following  terms:— "It  is,  perhaps,  the  most  solemn  and 
important  ever  heard  at  this  bar.  For  my  own  share,  I  am  unconnected  with 
the  parties;  and  having  with  all  possible  attention  considered  the  matter, 
both  in  public  and  private,  I  shall  give  my  opinion  with  that  strictness  of 
impartiality  to  which  your  Lordships  have  so  just  and  equitable  a  claim. 
The  question  before  us  is, '  Is  tlie  appellant  the  son  of  the  late  Lady  Jane 
Douglas  or  not  V  I  am  of  the  mind  that  he  is ;  and  own  that  a  more  ample 
itnd  positive  proof  of  a  child's  being  the  son  of  a  mother  never  appeared  in  a 
';ourt  of  justice,  or  before  any  assize  whatever."  - 

After  stating  at  great  length  the  evidence  in  support  of  his  opinion,  in 
which  he  referred  to  the  objections  to  the  appellant  being  refuted,  and  as 

Lord  Campbell's  Lives  of  the  Chancellors.       'IM  .January  1709. 
^'>L  V,  pp.  500,  .501 ;  Scots  Magazine  for  1769,  -  Reports  of  Appeal  Cases  by  T.  S.  Patoii. 

^■"1.  XXXI.  p.  107;  Edinburgh  Evening  Courant,        vol.  ii.  p.  107. 


only  tending  to  render  the  virtues  of  Lady  Jane  more  brilliant  and  illustrious, 
tlie  Lord  Chancellor  concluded  his  speech  in  these  words : — "  The  question 
before  us  is  short :  Is  the  appellant  the  son  of  Lady  Jane  Douglas  or  not  ? 
If  there  be  any  Lords  within  these  walls  who  do  not  believe  in  a  future  state. 
these  may  go  to  death  witli  the  declaration  that  they  believe  he  is  not.  For 
my  part  I  am  fur  sustaining  the  positive  [)roof  which  T  find  weakened  b\- 
uothing  brought  against  it ;  and  in  this  mind  T  lay  my  hand  upon  my  lireast 
and  declare  that  in  my  soul  and  conscience  T  believe  the  appellant  to  be  her 
son."^  While  the  Lord  Chancellor  spoke  there  was  such  silence  that  a 
handkerchief  would  have  been  heard  to  fall  notwithstandinij  the  crowds  in 
attendance.  Lord  Campbell  says  that  Lord  Camden  attracted  chief  notice 
while  Chancellor  by  his  judgment  in  the  great  Douglas  cause.^ 

Lord  Mansfield  said :  "  This  is  the  greatest  and  most  important  cause  tiiat 
occurs  to  me  :  it  is  no  less  than  an  attack  upon  the  virtue  and  honour  of  a 
lady  of  the  first  quality,  in  order  to  dispossess  a  young  man  of  an  eminent 
fortune,  reduce  him  to  beggary,  strip  him  of  his  birthiight,  declare  him  an 
alien  and  a  foundling.  I  have  slept  and  waked  upon  the  subject,  considered 
it  upon  my  pillow  to  tlie  losing  of  my  natural  rest,  and  wi[h  all  the  judgment 
I  was  capable,  have  considered  the  various  articles  that  make  up  this  Ion" 
and  voluminous  cause."     Lord  ^lansfield  explained  that  as  the  Lord  Chan- 

^  Reports  of  Appeal  Cases  by  T.  S.  I'aton,  predecessor  in  the  chaneellorsLip  was  the  Karl 

vol,  ii.  p.  167.  of   Northingtou.      He  was  one  ot    the  peers 

^  whom  the  Duchess  of  Hamilton  solicited  very 

-  The    Lord    Chancellor    referred    to    was  earnestly  to  espouse  the  cause  of  her  son.    His 

('harles  Pratt,   an  eminent  lawyer,  who  was  Lordship  excused  himself  that  he  could  not 

created  Lord  Camden  in  1765,  and  appointed  do  so,  as  he  had  not  heard  the  pleadiniTS  on 

Lord  Chancellor  in  the  following  year.    Horace  either    side.       The    Duchess,    however,    still 

Walpole  says  that,  with  decency  and  dignity,  continued  to   press  his   Lordship,  who   "ave 

he  concealed  his  opinion  on  the  Douglas  Cause  her  a  not  very  delicate  final  refusal,  which  is 

to  the  very  day  of  the  decision.     [Memoirs  of  recordedin  contemporary  memoirs.  [Memoire.s 

George  in.  vol.   iii.  p.  30.1]     His  immediate  .Tun  Vnyageur  qui  se  rejuise,  vol.  iii.  p.  187.] 


cellor  had  anticipated  much  of  what  he  intended  to  speak  upon  the  subject, 
h<;  only  touched  upon  tlie  situation  and  character  of  the  deceased  Lady  Jane. 
Hi.s  Lord.ship  spoke  from  personal  knowledge  of  her  Ladyship,  and  gave 
several  interesting  particulars  respecting  her.  He  said  he  remembered 
Lidy  June  "  in  the  year  175U  to  ha^-e  been  in  the  most  deplorable 
circumstances.  She  came  to  me  (I  being  Solicitor-CIeneral)  in  a  very 
destitute  condition,  and  yet  her  modesty  would  not  suffer  her  to  com- 
l)laiu.  The  noblewuman  was  every  way  visible,  even  under  all  the  pressure 
<)f  want  and  poverty.  Her  visage  and  appearance  were  more  powerful 
advocates  than  her  voice,  and  yet  I  was  afraid  to  ofter  her  relief  for  fear  of 
being  construed  to  prufter  her  an  indignity.  In  this  manner  she  came  twice 
to  my  house  before  I  knew  her  real  necessities,  to  relieve  which  now  was  my 
aim.  I  spoke  to  Mr.  Telham  in  her  favour ;  told  him  of  her  situation  with 
regard  to  her  brother,  the  Duke  of  Douglas,  and  of  her  present  straits  and 
lUfficulties.  Mr.  Telham,  without  delav.  laid  the  matter  before  the  kino- 
His  JNLajesty  immediately  granted  her  £300  per  annum  out  of  the  privy 
purse  ;  and  Mr.  Pelham  was  so  generous  as  to  order  £150  of  the  money  to  be 
instantly  paid.  I  can  assure  your  Lordships  that  I  never  did  trouble  his 
Majesty  for  any  other.  Lady  Jane  Douglas  was  the  first  and  last  who  ever 
had  a  pension  by  my  means.  At  that  time  I  looked  upon  her  to  be  a  lady  of 
the  strictest  honour  and  integrity,  and  tu  have  the  deepest  sense  of  the 
grandeur  of  the  family  from  whence  she  was  sprung:  a  family  conspicuously 
great  in  Scotland  for  a  thousand  years  past;  a  family  whose  numerous 
branches  have  spread  over  Europe.  They  have  frequently  intermarried  with 
tlie  blood  royal,  and  she  herself  was  descended  from  Henry  vii."  ^ 

After  these  speeches  of  the  two  greatest  of  the  law  Lords,  the  House  of 

'  lleiK>rt8  of  Appeal  Cases,  by  T.  8.  Paton,       with    the    heat    and    fatigue.     [Memoirs   c.f 
vol.  11.  pp.    172-174.     Horace  Walpole  says       George  iir.,  vol.  iii.  p.  304.] 
th.-it    Lord    Maustield  si)oke    till   he    faintetl 

VOL  I.  J 


Lords,  at  ten  o'clock  at  night,  reversed  the  jiulgnieiit  of  the  Court  of  ^session, 
and  affirmed  the  appeal  in  favour  of  Mr.  Douglas  without  a  division.^  Thus 
practically  ended  tlie  great  Douglas  cause.'- 

In  honour  of  this  gi'eat  victory  the  Duchess  of  Queensberry,  one  of  the 
two  victorious  Duchesses,  gave  a  ball  on  Saturday,  the  11th  Marcli  1769. 
It  was  attended  1>y  several  of  the  royal  family,  including  the  Duke  of  Cum- 
berland and  the  Queen's  two  brothers,  about  140  people,  and  six  or  seven 
and  twenty  couple  of  dancers.  The  ball  was  very  fine.  The  Lord  Chan- 
cellor invited  himself,  and  seemed  in  very  good  spirits.  His  lad}'  and 
daughter  were  nivited.  For  that  civility  his  lordship  wrote;  his  thanks  to 
the  Duchess,  adding  that,  if  she  would  permit  him,  he  would  come  and 
return  his  thanks  in  person.  To  which  the  Duchess  answered  in  these 
words: — "  Katherine  Queensberry  says,  Content  upon  her  honour" — this 
being  the  form  of  assent  by  the  Lords  in  the  House  of  Peers.^ 

The  Duchess  of  Hamilton  continually  brought  up  the  Douglas  Cause  to 
tlie  King  and  Queen  whenever  she  had  an  opportunity.  But  their  Majesties 
never  gave  her  an  answer,  and  judiciously  evaded  tlie  subject.     The  Duchess 

J   Lord   Campbell,    in    bis    "  Lives    of    tbe  about  the  jiulgmeut    in   the  Douglas    Cause 

Chancellors,"  expresses  his  own    opinion   on  that     Mr.      .Tohn      Home,     the      author     of 

the  merits  of  the  Douglas  Cause  in  the  follow-  "  Douglas,"'  attributeil  the  want  of  success  of 

ing  terms: — "  I  once  studied  the  case  very  his  tragedy  of   "The  Fatal  Discovery,"  and 

attentively,  and  I  must  own  that  I  came  to  the  thinness  of   autliences  to  hear  it  at  the 

the  conclusion  that  the  House  of  Lords  did  play-houses,  to  the  absorbing  interest  of  the 

well  in  reversing. "     [^'ol.  v.  p.  288,  edition  Douglas  Cause.     How  different  was  the  pre- 

1849.]     Lord  Campbell,  in  his  •'  Life  of  Lord  viously   marked   success   of   the    tragedy    of 

Thnrlow,"  says  that  it  was  Thurlow  who  pre-  •'  |).)uglas ''  by  the  same  author.      Crowded 

pared  the  apj)eal  case  for  Mr.  Douglas,  which  and  enthusiastic  audiences   night  after  night 

mainly  led  to  the  success  of  the  appeal.     Lord  were  gratified  with  it.     Amidst  the  applause 

Campbell   earnestly   recommends  the   appeal  one  more  than  ordinarily  enthusiastic  S(x>tch 

case  to  the  law  student  a.'s  a  model  of  lucid  admirer  was  heard  triumphantly  exclaiming, 

arrangementand  forcible  reasoning.  [//*.p.4!)t>.]  "  Whaur  "s  your  Wullie  Shakespeare  nooV" 

-  So  great  was  the  excitement  in   London  -^  .lounial  of  Lady  Mary  Coke. 


of  Douglas,  on  the  other  haud,  did  not  go  out  of  her  house,  nor  solicit  any  of 
the  peers  for  their  votes.  After  the  judgment  was  pronounced  in  favour 
.if  Mr.  Douglas,  the  Princess  Amelia  expressed  her  satisfaction,  and  her  belief 
that  the  King  and  Queen  were  also  pleased.^ 

Amongst  the  partisans  of  the  Duke  of  Hamilton  was  David  Hume,  the 
historian,  who  displayed  great  keenness,  through  his  connection  with  Mr. 
Andrew  Stuart.  Contrary  to  his  custom,  Mr.  Hume  was  much  out  of 
humour  when  the  Cause  was  decided  by  the  Lords,  and  made  several  peevisji 
remarks,  which  hurt  him.'- 

After  the  final  judgment,  many  pamphlets,  including"  Durando,  a  Spanish 
Tale,"  and  letters,  continued  to  be  published  by  partisans  on  either  side. 
One  of  the  ablest  of  these  productions  consisted  of  a  series  of  Letters 
addressed  to  Lord  :\Lansfield  by  Mr.  Andrew  Stuart  against  the  opinion  of 
his  lordship.  But,  while  abl}-  and  even  calmly  written  upon  certain  points, 
the  feelings  of  the  disappointed  litigant  appear  throughout.^ 

In  an  unpublished  manuscript  Sketch  of  the  Life  of  Lord  Monboddo,  b\- 
his  daughter,  Mrs.  Kirkpatrick  Williamson,  several  incidents  of  his  con- 
nection with  the  Douglas  Cause  are  interesting,  and  worth  recording.  Mi-. 
Burnet  was  early  retained  as  one  of  the  counsel  for  Mr.  Douglas.  His  ai^eni 
waited  on  him  with  a  retaining  fee,  and  before  the  agent  had  retired, 
Mr.  Andrew  Stuart,  agent  for  the  Duke  of  Hamilton,  appeared,  intending 
to  retain  Mr.  Burnet  f(.r  the  Duke,  but  had  to  retire  disappointed. 

Mr.  Burnet  became  greatly  absorbed  in  the  Douglas  Cause.  Three 
duchesses,  as  interested  parties,  were  also  very  active,— the  Duchesses  of 
Douglas  and  Queensberry  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Duchess  of  Hamilton  on 

'^  Joiirn.-^l  of  Lady  iMary  Coke.  Mansfield  from  Andrew  Stuart,   Esq.     I.on- 

'  ''"'^-  don,  1773.     8vo,  p.  47. 

^  Letters   to   the   Right  Honourable  Lord 


the  other.  The  Duchess  of  Douglas  went  to  Paris  to  lacilitate  innuirie^s  tht  iv, 
and  hired  a  hotel,  where  she  kept  open  house  for  the  lawyers.  In  London 
she  did  the  same,  and  in  Edinburgh,  QueensLerry  House  was  lier  residence. 
On  account  of  his  great  abilities,  his  intimate  ac(j[uaintnnce  with  th<^  French 
language,  and  his  great  zeal  in  the  Cause,  ]\Ir.  Burnet  was  a  favourite  with 
the  Duchess.  She  presented  his  young  son  with  a  splendid  cap  of  blue  tissue, 
embroidered  with  silver  and  plume  of  white  feathers.  To  ]\Irs.  Burnet  her 
(Imce  presented  a  magnificent  Court  dress  of  pink  and  silver  tissue,  with 
trimming,  etc.,  to  suit,  rubies,  eamngs,  paste  necklace,  etc.,  to  which  her  hus- 
l)and  added  a  suit  of  the  finest  point  lace,  which  cost  him  one  hundred  guineas. 

^Ir.  Burnet's  residence  in  Edinburgh  was  in  St.  John's  Street,  Canongate. 
Being  very  near  Queensberry  House,  the  meetings  and  consultations  were 
frequent.  Dining  there  one  day  with  her  Grace,  the  subject  of  the  grand 
law-plea  V>ecame  the  all-absorbing  topic,  and  Mr.  Burnet  was  more  than 
usually  absent.  In  the  drawing-room,  the  Duchess  said  to  Mrs.  Burnet — 
"  Go,  ma'am,  in  my  chair,  dress  in  the  French  gown,  and  your  laces  and  fine 
things;  powder  your  bonnie  brown  hair,"  which  slie  was  never  allowed  by 
her  husband  to  do,  "  and  we  shall  pass  you  off  for  Lady  Sarah  Lennox."' 
Lady  Sarah  was  then  in  the  meridian  of  her  beauty.  K»[uipped  accordingly 
by  the  time  the  gentlemen  had  finished  their  wine  and  their  deliberations, 
so  metamorpliosed  and  so  announced,  it  was  no  wonder  that  the  absent- 
minded  lawyer  failed  to  recognise  his  own  wife,  till  her  laugh  and  her 
remark,  "  0  1  B.,  don't  you  know  me  ?"  disclosed  her  disguise. 

In  March  1705  Mr.  Burnet  and  the  other  Douglas  lawyers  repaired 
to  Paris.  Among  them  was  Mr.  Francis  Garden,  afterwards  Lord  Garden- 
stone.^  Of  all  his  coadjutors  Mr.  Burnet  was  the  most  zealous  in  the  cause  of 
Mr.  Douglas.     He  was  a  firm  l)eliever  in  the  truth  of  it  after  having  carefully 

^  In   the    famous  "Douglas   Cause"    Mr.        the  Parliament  of  Paris,  where  he  was    op- 
Garden  "  made  a  distinguished  figure  before       posed  by  Mr.  Wedderburn  (afterwards  Lord 


tnict'il  its  history  and  all  the  secrets.  By  the  time  the  case  came  to  he 
ilecided  Mr.  Rurnet  liad  heen  raised  to  the  Bench  under  the  title  of  Lord 
.Nfoiiboddo.     He  gave  his  judgment  unhesitatingly  in  iuvour  of  Mr.  Douglas.^ 

According  to  tradition,  tlie  Duchess  ^vas  the  last  of  the  nobility  who,  in 
laying  visits  or  travelling  about  the  country,  were  escorted  by  halberdiers. 
.•<he  was  also  accustomed  when  she  visited  any  family  to  leave  her  dress 
behind  her  as  a  present.  By  her  testament  she  left  certain  lands  to  Captain 
.Vrchibald  Douglas,  eldest  son  of  her  eldest  brother,  James  Douglas,  and  to 
other  heirs  of  entail,  the  lands  to  receive  the  name  of  Douglas-Support  or 
Mains-Support  of  Douglas.  The  Duchess  also  directed  that  the  heirs  suc- 
ceeding to  these  lands  should  assume  the  name  of  Douglas,  and  carry  the 
anns  of  Douglas  and  Mains,  with  the  addition  of  a  woman  trampling  a  snake 
under  her  feet  and  supporting  a  child  in  her  arms,  crowned  with  laurels."- 
I'his  device  the  Duchess  applied  to  herself,  and  her  triumphant  support  of 
her  nephew  in  the  Douglas  Cause. 

In  the  Memoir  of  Lord  Monboddo  it  is  stated  tliat  Lady  Jane  Douglas 
resided  with  her  mother,  the  ]\Iarchioness  of  Douglas,  at  Merchiston  Castle, 
near  Edinburgh.  Lady  Jane  sat  there  for  her  portrait  to  James  Ferguson, 
the  famous  astronomer,  who  was  then  an  itinerant  painter.  He  was  quite 
enchanted  with  her  Ladyship.  There  are  three  portraits  in  oil  of  Lady 
Jane  Douglas — two  of  these  are  at  Bothwell  Castle,  and  one  at  Douglas 
<  'astle.  The  names  of  the  painters  are  unknown,  and  one  of  the  three  may 
have  been  the  work  of  Ferguson,  mentioned  in  tlie  Monboddo  memoir, 
although  he  is  said  to  have  painted  only  miniatures. 

A  characteristic  letter  from  ]\Ir.  Carlyle  contains  incidental  references  to 

<1iaueellor),  and  astonished  all  present  by  his       ment  in  favour  of  Mr.  Douglas. 

It'gal  knowledge  and  tluency  in  the   French 

Unguage."  [Senators  of  the  College  of  Justice, 

p.  5'28.]     Lord  Gardenstone  gave  his    judg-  -  Disposition  in  Stonebyres  Charter-chest. 

1   MS.  Sketch  at  Glenbervie. 



Lady  Jane  Douglas  and  the  Douglas  Cause.  It  was  written,  as  it  bears,  in 
acknowledgment  of  a  presentation  copy  of  the  Eed  Book  of  Grandtully,  in 
which  a  memoii'  of  Lady  Jane  Douglas  appeared.  In  his  early  years  Mr. 
Carlyle  resided  for  some  time  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Grandtully,  and  the 
late  Sir  AVilliani  Drummond  Steuart  thought  that  a  copy  of  the  Book  wi>uld 
be  acceptable  to  him.     ^fr.  Carlyle  wrote  as  folhnvs : — 

5  Ciieyue  Row,  Chelsea,  8th  July  1SG1». 

Dear  Sik, — I  Lave  this  morniug  received  the  two  beautiful  quartos,  which  yc>ur 
obliging  letter  of  yesterday  announced  to  nie.  They  are  among  the  boautifullest  volumes 
I  have  seen ;  beautifully  printed,  illustrated,  and  indexed, — in  short,  victoriously  eciited, 
and  made  clear  to  every  reader.  I  promise  myself  a  great  deal  of  entertainment  and 
historical  instruction  in  examining  those  curious  old  documents  and  correspondences, 
here  brought  to  light  in  such  a  legible  form.  I  beg  you  will  convey  to  Sir  "William 
Drummond  Steuart,  Baronet,  my  lively  sense  of  the  great  honour  and  kindness  he  has 
been  pleased  to  do  me.  of  which  I  shall  not  fail  to  entertain  a  grateful  and  pleasant 
memory  henceforth. 

For  indeed  I  had  already  a  kind  of  shadowy  relation  to  Murthly  and  its  owners  : 
in  my  young  days,  near  half  a  century  ago,  I  lived  once  a  summer  and  winter  in  that 
neighbourhood,  and  often  enough  heard  of  Murtldy  and  its  then  lord  in  the  house  where 
I  lived  ^^Kinnaird,  near  Logierait) ;  and  within  the  last  ten  years,  I  have,  through  an 
old  thin  pamphlet  of  •'  Letters  by  Lady  Jane  Douglas  Stewart," — which  you  also 
seem  to  know  of, — made  the  acquaintance  of  the  husband  of  that  famous  lady,  whose 
letters  dating  often  from  Chelsea,  where  I  now  am,  touched  me  deeply  ;  and  in  fact 
rendered  it  privately  imp'issiV>le  for  me  to  believe,  or  surmise,  that  such  a  Lady  Jane 
was  capable  of  any  baseness,  or  deliberate  mendacity  whatever.  Upon  which,  indeed, 
I  fairly  ended  my  study  of  "  The  Douglas  Cause." 

With  many  thanks  to  all  parties  concerned  in  this  pleiisant  gift  to  me,  I  remaui, 

dear  Sir,  yours  sincerely. 

T.   Carlylk 

From  William  of  Douglas,  who  held  the  V'ale  of  Douglas  between  the 
years  1174  and  1199,  to  his  lineal  heir  and  present  representative,  Charles 
Alexander  Douglas-Home,  twelfth  Earl  of  Home,  and  Lord  Douglas  of 
Douglas,  there  are  twenty-two  generations.     These  endn-ace  a  period  of  seven 

C0NCLi::S10X.  l.wxvii 

(;»Mitiiries.  Few  families  in  this  country  can  point  to  the  continued  inherit- 
ance of  the  territory  which  gave  them  a  family  name  so  early  as  the  reign  of 
King  William  the  Lion  in  the  twelfth  century.  r»ut  amidst  all  the  vicissi- 
tudes and  changes,  often  tragic  and  romantic,  wliich  the  family  of  Douglas 
have  experienced,  their  original  dale  of  Douglas  has  continued  to  he  inherited 
hy  their  lineal  repn'sentatives  to  the  present  day. 

The  Borders  of  to-day,  now  as  quiet  and  peaceful  as  any  portion  of 
•Scotland  or  England,  present  a  marked  contrast  to  the  once  distracted  state 
of  tliese  districts,  as  it  is  disclosed  by  these  memorials  of  former  Douglas 
wardens.  The  "  old  enemies "  on  either  side  are  changed  to  fast  friends. 
Border  feuds  frequently  involved  both  countries  in  war,  while,  on  the  Scottish 
side,  various  clans  were  often  engaged  in  deadly  feuds  among  themselves. 
The  great  houses  of  Scott  and  Ker  had  many  a  fierce  encounter.  But  this 
state  of  affairs  has  been  long  happily  exclianged  for  the  closest  i-elationships 
and  the  warmest  friendships. 

The  Maxwells  and  the  Johnstones,  two  great  rival  Border  houses  on  the 
west,  with  their  deadly  feuds,  were  formerly  a  source  of  great  destruction  to 
t-ach  other,  and  of  increasing  trouble  to  the  authorities,  who  were  responsible 
for  the  peace  of  the  country.  In  the  course  of  their  strife,  each  family  lost 
two  chieftains  ;  one  dying  of  a  ]»roken  heart,  another  in  the  field  of  battle,  a 
tliird  by  assassination,  and  a  fourth  by  the  sword  of  the  executioner.  In 
modem  times  the  ^laxwells  and  the  Johnstones  have  been  and  are  fast 
triends,  so  much  so,  that  a  Johnstone  has  assumed  the  surname  of  Maxwell, 
a.s  the  inheritor  of  a  Maxwell  property. 

One  more  instance  of  these  amicaltle  relations  is  afforded  by  the  present 
work.  The  Homes  and  the  Douglases  had  many  an  encounter  in  the  old 
I'xnder  times.  But  now  the  head  of  the  House  of  Home  combines  the  two 
•surnames  of  Douglas  and  Home  with  the  male  representation  of  Home,  and 
the  female  representation  of  Douglas. 


The  ditticulties  which  the  learned  Luml  of  Godscroft  encoimtered  with 
his  Douglas  history  in  his  own  lifetime,— his  anxieties  in  reference  to  it  even 
on  his  deathbed,— and  the  fate  which  befel  it  after  his  death,  indicate  to  some 
extent  the  troubles  connected  with  such  an  undertaking. 

These  four  volumes,  now  completed  after  many  years'  labour,  can  only 
show  in  part  the  extensive  investigations  which  have  been  made,  not  merely 
in  the  Douglas  and  Angus  muniments,  but  also  in  public  and  private  reposi- 
tories. Many  interesting  Douglas  charters  obtained  from  these  sources  are 
now  printed  for  the  first  time.  They  form  a  valuable  collection,  and  a  partial 
compensation  for  the  loss  of  the  ancient  numimeuts  nf  the  family  in  the 
tragedies  which  were  su  fre^iuently  enacted  in  their  eventful  history. 

To  the  owners  of  Douglas  charters  not  in  the  Douglas  Cliarter-ciiest,  who 
"enerously  intrusted  them  U)  him  in  connection  with  the  present  work,  the 
author's  acknowledgments  have  been  often  made.  The  statements  throughout 
these  volumes,  of  the  sources  from  which  these  muniments  have  been 
derived,  will  show  liow  largely  he  is  indebted.  To  the  many  friends  who 
have  also  in  other  forms  attbrded  valuable  aid  with  these  volumes  his 
acknowledgments  liave  also  been  made,  and  are  again  gratefully  recorded. 

Sir  Walter  Scott,  who  kuew  and  loved  the  histories  of  families  so  well, 
in  "  Castle  Dangerous,"'  makes  Sir  Aymer  de  Valence,  the  English  kniglit. 
interrupt  the  sexton  of  St.  Bride's  of  ])ouglas,  in  his  attempted  recitation  of 
the  pedigree  of  the  house  of  Douglas.  A  less  matter,  the  knight  said,  would 
hold  a  well-l>reath'd  min.strel  in  subject  fur  recitation  for  a  calendar  month, 
Sundavs  and  linlidays  uicluded.  Tlie  true  history  of  the  Douglases  was  then 
only  a  century  oLl.  Since  the  time  of  Sir  Aymer  de  Valence,  their  histoiy 
has  orowu  for  six  centuries  more,  and  ihesc  may  iittbrd  matter  for  other  well- 

breath'd  minstrels,  if  the  race  is  not  now  extinct. 


Edinbcrgh,  32  Castle  Stf-kkt, 
:MM  DfCfnmhor  1SS.">. 


A  T  the  outset  of  a  history  of  the  great  race  of  Douglas,  the  first  question 
^^^  which  arises  is,  What  was  the  origin  of  the  family  ?  This  question 
has  long  formed  the  subject  of  discussion  among  historians.  Authors  eminent 
for  learning,  ingenuity,  and  research  have  formed  widely  different  opinions. 
But  after  all  the  discoveries  which  have  been  made,  especially  during  the 
present  century,  it  must  be  confessed,  the  point  is  left  in  the  same  state  of 
doubt  as  it  was  upwards  of  four  centuries  ago,  in  the  days  of  the  metrical 
chronicler,  Andrew  Wyntown.  In  these  preliminaiy  remarks,  all  that  can 
be  proposed  is,  to  gather  together  the  various  statements  regarding  the 
origin  of  the  Douglases,  and  present  them  in  a  form  appropriate  to  a  history 
of  the  family.  A  connected  statement  and  comparison  of  the  results  of 
recent  researches,  such  as  is  here  attempted,  has  not  hitherto  been  formally 
made.  Yet,  even  when  these  are  brought  together,  and  their  details  presented 
and  examined  from  new  points  of  view,  there  is  but  little  progress  made 
towards  the  elucidation  of  the  mystery,  beyond  the  weakening  of  some 
hypotheses  and  the  strengthening  of  others. 

The  historian  who  first  treats  of  the  origin  of  the  Douglas  family  is 
Andrew  of  Wyntown,  Prior  of  St.  Serfs  Isle  in  Lochleven,  who  wrote  in 
the  early  part  of  the  fifteenth  century,  and  whose  metrical  chronicle  is  well 
known.^    His  allusion  to  the  Douglases,  to  whom  he  assigns  a  kindred  origin 

'  Hia  "Croaykil"  was  completed  between  1420  and  1424.  —  Macpherson's  edition, 
preface,  p.  xxii. 

VOL.  1.  \ 


with  the  powerful  family  of  Moravia  or  ]\Ioray,  is  very  brief,  and  is  here 
given  in  his  own  vernacular : — 

Of  Murrawe  uud  the  Douglas, 
How  that  thare  begynnyng  was, 
Syn  syndry  men  spekis  syndryly, 
I  can  put  that  in  na  story. 
Bet  in  thare  armeys  Wth  thai  bere 
The  sternys  set  in  lyk  manere. 
Til  mony  men  it  is  yhit  sene 
Apperand  lyk,  that  thai  had  bene 
Of  kyn  be  descens  lyneale, 
Or  be  branchys  coUatcrale.^ 

Sir  Eichard  Maitland  of  Lethington,  whose  work  has  been  explained  in 
the  Introduction,  does  not  refer  to  the  question  of  the  origin.  Godscroft, 
however,  as  is  well  known,  assigns  to  the  House  of  Douglas  a  very  remote 
origin,  dating  from  a.d.  767,  when  the  first  who  received  tlie  surname  ol 
Douglas  is  said  to  have  taken  part  in  the  wars  of  King  Solvathius.  So 
satisfied  was  this  historian  with  his  Douglas  pedigree,  that  he  uttered  a  protest 
against  authors  who  carried  the  ancestry  of  his  heroes  no  further  back  than 
William  "Le  Hardi,"  the  father  of  the  Good  Sir  James,  among  whom  is 
included  Sir  Richard  [Maitland,  whose  manuscript  was  known  to  Godscroft. 
In  the  light  of  recent  researches  it  is  proposed  here  to  discuss  the  narra- 
tives of  Wyntown  and  Hume  of  Godscroft,  so  far  as  these  refer  to  the  origin 
of  the  Douglas  family,  as  well  as  other  suggested  theories  of  that  origin. 

Andrew  of  Wyntown,  as  is  evident  from  the  quotation  given,  distinctly 
states  that  even  in  his  day  opinions  were  divided  as  to  the  ancestral  origin 
of  the  house  of  Douglas.  To  many  it  seemed  that  the  families  of  [Moray  and 
Douglas  were  akin  by  direct  or  collateral  descent,  because  their  shields  of 
arms  bore  the  device  of  three  stars  "set  in  lyk  maner."     Macpherson,  tlu- 

^  WjTitown's  Cronykil,  B.  viii.  c.  7,  U.  149-1. "8. 


well-known  editor  of  Wyntown,  remarks  somewhat  contemptuously  on  this 
statement,  that  it  was  in  Wyntown's  own  time  that  Archibald  Douglas,  Lord 
of  Galloway,  afterwards  third  Earl  of  Douglas,  assumed  the  three  stars  of 
Moray  on  Iiis  marriage  with  Joanna  of  Moray,  the  heiress  of  Bothwell.^  But 
the  learned  editor  w^as  somewhat  hasty  in  his  conclusion.  Sir  Archibald 
Douglas,  sometime  after  his  maniage,  did  assume  the  arms  of  IVIoray,  being 
three  stars,  two  and  one,  in  an  escutcheon  of  pretence.  But  these  armorial 
licarings  were  in  addition  to  his  own  three  stars  in  chief,  for  Douglas. 
Before  he  assumed  the  stars  of  ^loray,  his  blazon  was  identical  with  that  of 
his  cousin  William,  first  Earl  of  Douglas,  whose  seal,  about  the  same  date, 
displays  on  a  chief  three  stars,  with  a  heart  in  base.-  Archibald,  fourth  Earl 
of  Douglas,  son  of  Sir  Archibald,  who  quartered  his  shield,  bore  the  Douglas 
arms  in  the  first  ([uarter,  and  the  arms  of  his  mother,  the  heiiess  of  Both- 
well,  in  the  third  quarter.  It  is  true  that  the  blazon  of  the  family  of  Moray, 
us  borne  by  the  house  of  Bothwell,^  differs  somewhat  from  the  blazon  of 
Douglas,  the  first  being  three  stars,  two  and  one,  while  the  latter  is  three 
stars  in  chief,  or  on  a  chief.  But  that  fact  does  not  invalidate  Wyntown's 
statement,  as  the  armorial  shields  of  the  two  families  bore  the  same  number 
of  stars,  though  not  similarly  arranged. 



Apart  from  the  question  of  armorial  bearings,  which  will  be  afterwards 
uiore   fully  considered,  the  opinion  of  Wyntown's  day,  that   the   Morays 

^  Wyntown's  Cronykil,  Macpherson's  edi-  ■*  The  House  of  Bothwell,  descended  from 

tion,  vol.  ii.  p.  498.  a  younger    branch    of   the    Moravia    family, 

bore  three  stars,  two  and  one,   identical  in 

-  Seals  attached  to  deed  in  1373,  ratifying  arrangement  with  the  bearings  of  the  House 
succession  to  Crown  of  Scotland,  Acta  of  the  of  Sutherland,  which  descended  from  the 
Harliaments  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  [>.  549.  eldest  branch  of  the  same  family. 


and  the  Douglases  were  of  kin,  is    corroborated  by   authentic  record.     To 
sliow  this,  a  short  sketch  may  be  given  of  the  joint  history  of  the  earlier 
members  of  the  two  families,  so  far  as  supported  by  facts.     The  more  ancient 
of  these  two  great  houses,  according  to  existing  documents,  Was  the  family, 
the  members  of  which  assumed   the   surname   De  Moravia,  or  of   .Aloray.' 
The  earliest  known  ancestor  of  this  family  was  Freskiuus  or  Freskiu,  wlio 
lived  during  the  reign  of  King  David  the  First.    From  that  king  Freskin  held 
the  lands  of  Strabrock  (now  Uphall)  in  Linlithgowshire,  and  also  the  lands 
of  Duffus  and  other  territories  in  Moray.      This  is  all  that  is  known  of 
Freskin,  who  must  have  died  before  1171,  as  about  that  year  his  second  son 
WiUiam  received  a  grant  of  his  father's  lands  of  Duffus.^   Freskin  of  Strabrock 
and  Duffus  had  three  sons,  Hugh,  William,  and  Andrew.     Of  the  last  named 
little  is  known,  but  the  descendants  of  the  two  former  assumed  the  surname  De 
Moravia,  and  were  the  ancestors  of  all  the  branches  of  that  wide-spread  house. 
Owing  to  the  obscurity  which  rests  upon  early  Scottish  history  in  the 
time  of  King  David  tlie  First,  and  his  immediate  successors,  the  reason  why 
the  Laird  of  Strabrock  and  his  descendants  were  transported  to  Morayshire, 
and  received  such  extensive  territories,  is  not  readily  apparent.    According 
to  a  tradition  preserved  by  Mr.  Hew  Rose,  minister  of  Nairn,  who  wrote 
a  history  of  the  Roses  of  Kilravock  in  the  year  1684,  the  family  of  Freskin 
were  natives  of  the  soil  of  which  they  became  lords,  having  received  Duffus 
and  other  lands  as  a  reward  for  their  loyalty  to  King  Malcolm  the  Fourth, 
who  "dispersed  the  Moravii."^'     In  the  face  of  evidence  that  Freskin  held 
lands   in   Linlithgowshire  as    well   as  Moray,  prior   to    the  reign  of  Kin- 
Malcolm  the  Fourth,  this  tradition  is  of  comparatively  small  value,  excep^t 
as  regards  the  reference  to  the  dispersion  of  the  men  of  Moray,  of  which 
there  is  evidence  from  other  sources. 

John  of  Fordun,  whose  annals  were  written  between  the  years    1360 

'  Nisbefs  Heraldry,  E,l.  1S04.  vol.  ii.  Appendix,  p.  183.  ^'  Rose  of  EUravock,  p.  61. 

COLONISATION  OF  MORAY,   1130-1160. 

aiul  1387,  asserts  that  King  Malcolm  the  Fourth,  who  reigned  from  1153 
to  1165,  in  consequence  of  a  rebellion  by  the  people  of  Moray  under 
Angus,  a  descendant  of  their  ancient  chiefs,  expelled  the  native  popu- 
lation of  the  district.  He  did  this,  it  is  said,  by  dispossessing  them, 
scattering  them  over  .Scotland,  and  planting  new  colonies  in  their  ruom.i 
This  statement  is  undoubtedly  too  sweeping,  but  good  evidence  exists  of 
great  changes  among  the  proprietors  of  lands  in  Moray  during  this  and 
the  preceding  reign.  That  province  had  been  troublesome  to  the  kin^s  of 
Scotland  in  their  attempts  to  govern  the  whole  country,  and  it  especially  had 
resisted  the  efforts  of  King  David  the  First  to  establish  his  feudal  system. 
In  1130,  while  the  king  was  in  England,  Angus,  called  Earl  of  Moray,  a 
descendant  of  the  native  Mormaers,  joining  with  Malcolm,  a  natural  son  of 
the  late  King  Alexander  the  First,  raised  the  standard  of  insurrection. 
They  marched  southward  with  a  force  of  five  thousand  men,  but  were  met  at 
Stracathro,  in  Forfarshire,  by  Edward,  Constable  of  Scotland,  and  defeated 
with  great  slaughter,  Angus  of  :\roray  being  slain.  The  royal  forces  then 
entered  Moray,  and  secured  possession  of  that  territory.- 

From  that  time  King  David  the  First  gave  attention  to  the  civilisation  of 
Moray,  a  policy  which  was  followed  up  by  his  grandsons  and  successors, 
Malcolm  the  Fourth  and  William  the  Lion,  the  latter  of  whom  frequently 
resided  in  the  district.  King  David  pursued  the  plan  of  planting  rojal 
castles  along  the  co;ist,  round  which  burghs  soon  gathered,  which  were  filled 
by  a  commercial,  and  therefore  a  comparatively  peaceful  population.  At 
Inverness,  Elgin,  and  perhaps  Banff  and  Forres,  there  were  burghs  or  castles 
from  this  time.3     There  was  a  castle  at  Duffus  so  early  as  1203,  if  not  in  the 

'  Fordun'8  AnnaUa,  edition  1871,  p.  257.  3  Registrum  de  Duafermelyn,  p.  IS.     King 

David  the  First  at  Bantf  grants  20s.  from  his 
-  Authorities  quoted  in  Skene's  Celtic  Scot-        burgh  of   Elgin.       Cf.  also  Registrum  Mora- 
l^".l,  vol.  i.  p.  461.  viense,  p.  11,  No.  14. 


reign  of  King  David  the  First.^  Xot withstand ing  this  attempt  at  civilisation, 
however,  the  men  of  IMoray  rose  in  insurrection  more  than  once  ere  the 
province  was  settled.  One  of  the  most  formidable  of  these  uprisings  took 
place  as  stated,  in  the  time  of  King  IMalcolm  the  Fourth,  who,  according  to 
Fordim,  retaliated  1iy  depopulating  the  province,  and  colonising  it  with  a 
"peculiar  and  peaceable  people. "- 

The  assertion  as  to  depopulation  has  been  much  doubted,  and  is  not  to 
be  understood  of  the  tillers  of  the  soil;  but  there  is  authentic  evidence  in 
Malcolm's  reign  of  changes  among  the  iiroprietors,  and  the  native  lords  mav 
have  been  expelled  to  make  way  for  the  new  settlers.  One  of  these  settlers 
received  tlie  land;s  of  Innes,  between  tlie  Spey  and  the  Lossie,  and  his  name 
and  the  date  of  the  grant  give  a  clue  as  to  the  identity  of  the  new  colonists. 
The  grant  is  proved  to  have  been  made  in  the  year  11  GO,  and  tlie  grantee  was 
Berowald  or  Deroald,  a  Fleming  (Flandrensis),  whom  King  Malcolm  thus 
established  in  the  north."'  There  is  evidence  that  a  considerable  number  of 
Flemings  settled  in  Scotland  during  the  reign  of  King  David  the  First,  chiefly 
as  burgesses  and  traders,  in  IJerwick,  St.  Andrews,  and  otlier  places  on  tlie 
coast.  But  in  the  year  115G,  a  special  influx  of  Flemings  into  Scotlaiul  was 
caused  by  King  Henry  the  Second  of  England,  who  ex]Kdled  from  that 
country  a  large  number  who  had  settled  there.  A  few  went  to  Wales,  but 
large  numbers  came  to  Scotland,  where  they  were  welcomed,  the  character  of 
their  nation,  as  good  citizens  and  sturdy  soldiers,  being  well  known.  Those 
who  were  tliu>  driven  from  England  had  served  there  as  men-at-arms,  and 
the  natives  of  Flanders  were  noted  in  that  age  as  engineers,  builders,  fortihers, 
and  defenders  of  castles.'*  Such  were  the  very  men,  a  "  peculiar  and  peaceable 
people,"  to  settle  amid  a  turbulent  race,  to  build  castles,  and  to  hold  them  fnr 

1  Registrum  Moraviense,  p.  273.  •^  The  Familie  of  Inues,  Spalding  C'lul),  pp. 

.")0,  51. 
-  Fordun's  Annalia,  edition  1871,  Y>-  -o~.  ^   fhlil. :  of.  als()  Scalacrnnica,  p.  3o. 


the  Crown  to  overawe  the  natives.  The  registers  of  the  great  southern 
abbeys  also  afford  evidence  of  many  grants  to  Flemings  in  Clydesdale  and 
other  parts  of  Scotland  about  this  very  time. 

Accordiug  to  George  Chalmers,  the  learned  author  of  "  Caledonia,"  Freskiu 
of  Strabrock  was  one  of  these  energetic  settlers  who  was  selected  by  Iving 
David  the  First  to  colonise  tlie  conquered  province  of  ]\Ioray.i  Some  ridicule 
has  been  cast  on  this  author's  theory  of  a  Flemish  migration  to  Scotland,  as 
in  some  points  he  draws  too  hasty  conclusions.  In  this  case,  however,  he  has 
probability  on  his  side.  Theoljald  "  Flamaticus  "  at  a  later  date  obtained  a 
portion  of  Lesmahagow,-'  Thancard  had  Caldcr  as  well  as  Thankerton,^  while 
Warnebald,  Lambiu,  and  others  possessed  lands  in  the  counties  of  Linlithgow- 
and  Lanark.  King  David  the  First  had  a  great  regard  for  the  Flemings, 
and  appointed  one  of  their  number,  Mayuard,  who  had  been  Provost  of 
Berwick,  to  be  Provost  of  the  new  burgh  of  St.  Andrews.*  If,  therefore, 
Freskin  was  one  of  this  law-abiding  yet  warlike  people,  the  reason  for  his 
establishment  in  Morayshire  becomes  discernible.  Motives  similar  to  those 
which  afterwards  actuated  his  successor  would  lead  King  David  to  place  the 
strongholds  of  Morayshire  in  the  hands  of  men  on  whom  he  could  rely. 
By  selecting  a  Fleming  the  king  would  also  avoid  rousing  the  active  hos- 
tility of  tribes  who  would  probably  not  have  submitted  to  tlie  sway  of  a 
Norman.  The  insurrection  of  1130,  and  the  disturbances  which  followed 
during  the  next  four  years,  would  give  good  ground  for  such  a  policy. 

In  any  case,  as  proved  by  the  tenor  of  a  later  charter  to  his  second  son, 
the  grant  of  Duffus  and  other  lands  in  Moray  was  made  to  Freskin  in 
the  reign  of  King  David,  and  the  new  settler  became  the  lord  of  large  pos- 

»  Caledonia,  vol.  i.  p.  G()4.  vol  i.pp.  53,  85.  The  burgesses  of  St.  Andrews 

-  Liber  de  Calchou,  p.  84.  about    this    time    are    described    as    Scots, 

'  Registrum  Vetus  de  Aberbrothoc,  p.  60.  French,  Flemings,  and  English.      [Register  of 

■•Acts   of    the    Parliaments    of    Scotland,  St.  Andrews,  p.  1<)4.] 


sess.ous  ,u  the  north.  ,„  the  next  gene>.t.on  the.e  territorie:;;:,.^, 
TtTTTI;  that  Fteskin's  .,e.ce„..nts  adopted  the,,,  sutnan.e  ,Vo,„ 
the  dstnct  0    Mo,.av,a.  and   not  fron,  their  pa.tieular  estates  witl,i„  i„ 

And  e«.     Of  the  t  .,rd  sou  very  little  is  known,  and  his  deseendants  have 

eEarl    o  .  utherh„,d.     He  appears  as  a  witness  to  a  charte,-,  dated  between 
.7  and  1.62^granted  by  Eobert,  Bishop  of  St.  An.l,.ew3,  to  Herbert.  Bishop 
of  Glasgow.     K,„g  David  t.,e  First  and  his  son  P,.ince  Hen,,  were  presen 
w,  h  n,ore   than   forty  elerics  and  dignitaries  of  the  Court.  Baldwin  thj 
fl  m,„g.  and  Hugh,  son  of  Fresk.n.  being  the  last  two  nan,ed..    Hn»h  died 
be  ween  1.03  and  „„,  and  his  son  Willian,  beoan,e  lo.l  of  Snthlrland.' 
V^,  the  second  son  of  Freskin.  witnessed  the  charter  by  Ki„.  Afalcoln, 
the  Fonrth   to  Berowald  the  FIen„ng.  dated  at  Perth  in  the  yla'r         " 
Between  U65  and  lin.  ho  received  fronr  King  AV,llia,u  the  Lion  a  .-rant 
of    he  Ian  s  of  Strabrock,  Dnffns.  Eosile.  Inchikel,  Kintrai,  which  land^s  h 
^ther  Fres  ,n  held  in  the  t„ne  of  King  David  the  First.^    Willia,n.  son    f 

U8,  and  1199,  atHg,n,  Forres,  and  Inverness.-^  and  he  was  .sheriff  of  Inve,- 
nam  (Nairn)  m  1204.6 

WiUian.,  the  second  son  of  Fresk,n.  is  sa,d  to  have  had  three  sons,  na.ned 

specfvely  Hugh,  Willia.n,  and  Andrew.     Hugh,  the  eldest  son,  i  herUed 

the  lands  o    Duffus  and    Strabrock;  he  assu.ned  the  surnanre  of  Morav 

and  was  styled  Lord  of  Duffus  before  1 203.     He  was  buried  in  the  church  I'l 

Dffus  about  ,,,C,     William,  the  brother  of  Hugh,  possessed  the  lands  of 

KegiatrumEpiscopatusGlasguensis  n  n  Jp        * 

o"enM3,  p.i^.  '  ilegistrum  Moraviense,  p.  xxxiv. 

-  Registrum  xMoraviense,  preface,  p.  xxxiii,  '  ^*''^-  PP-  5-  6-  8-1 1- 

aud  charters  there  quoted.  '  '  Acts   of    the   Parliaments   of    Scotland, 

3    TT,      t-  •,•  '^*'^-   J-   P-  118. 

ibe  J?  amdie  of  Innes,  pp.  50.  51  ;  p       .. 

,  f'P  uu,  oi.  Registnim  Moraviense,  p.  xxxv 


Petty,  Brachlie,  Boharm,  and  Amdilly.  He  was  ancestor  of  the  jNIorays 
of  Bothwell,  and  died  before  1226.^  The  third  son,  Andrew,  was  a 

Freskin  was  dead,  and  his  sons  were  in  possession  of  their  large  territories 
in  Moray,  before  the  first  member  of  the  family  of  Douglas  appears  on 
record,  between  the  years  1174  and  1199.  During  these  years  William  of 
r)ouglas  witnessed  a  charter  in  favour  of  the  monks  of  Kelso,  granted  by 
Jocelyn,  Bishop  of  Glasgow.^  He  also  witnessed  a  charter  by  King  William 
the  Lion,  at  Edinburgh,  some  time  after  1196,*  and,  with  his  son  Archibald, 
was  present  at  a  convention  between  two  claimants  of  the  earldom  of 
Menteith,  made  on  6th  December  1213,  before  Alexander,  Prince  of  Scotland, 
and  a  number  of  magnates.^  The  precise  date  of  the  death  of  William  of 
Douglas  is  not  known,  but  it  is  evident  that  he  was  contemporary  with  the 
immediate  successors  of  Freskin.  Xo  evidence,  however,  has  been  found  that 
he  ever  resided  in  Morayshire. 

It  was  otherwise  with  William's  eldest  son  Archibald,  whose  history 
affords  several  points  of  interest  in  connection  with  the  question  of  the 
origin.  He  is  first  named  in  a  document  which  must  have  been  dated 
between  1179  and  1198,  in  which  Archibald,  Abbot  of  Dunfermline,  grants 
to  Thomas,  son  of  Edward  of  Lestalric  (Ptcstalrig),  the  lands  of  Hailes. 
The  Abbot  narrates  that  the  lands  had  been  held  from  the  monastery  by 
Archibald,  son  of  William  of  Douglas,  and  were  given  by  him  to  the  grantee.^ 
The  charters  of  the  lands  were  also  handed  over,  which  seems  to  imply  some 
length  of  possession  by  himself  or  his  father.  The  lands  of  Hailes  in 
^lidlothian  were  not  far  from  Strabrock  in  West  Lothian,  the  first  home  of 

'  Registrum  Moraviense,  [>p.  xxxvii,  23.  ■•  Charters  uf  Holyrood,  p.  44. 

=  The  Red  Book  of  Menteith,  by  Williaiu 
■^  Ibid. -p.  131.  ^  ,  .,. 

rraser,  vol.  u.  p.  215. 

'  Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  ii.  p.  346.  ^  Registnim  de  Dunfermelyn,  p.  190. 

V(»L.   F.  B 


the  Freskins,  and  as  the  latter  kept  up  connection  with  their  Lowland  estate, 
friendly  intercourse  may  have  existed  between  the  two  families. 

The  next  recorded  appearance  of  Archibald  Douglas,  son  of  William,  is 
in  Morayshire,  where  he  and  his  brothers  resided  more  or  less  permanently 
from  about  the  year  1200.  The  cause  of  this  migration  was  the  elevation 
of  Brice,  a  younger  son  of  William  of  Douglas,  to  the  Episcopal  See  of 
Moray.  He  belonged  to  the  fraternity  of  Kelso  Abbey,  and  had  been 
prior  of  their  cell  of  Lesmahagow,  not  far  from  his  native  valley  of  Douglas.^ 
Brice  of  Douglas  was  Bishop  of  Moray  from  1203  to  1222,  and  between 
these  years  the  following  members  of  the  family  of  Douglas  appear 
frequently  as  witnesses  to  charters  granted  by  him, — Archibald  of  Douglas, 
Alexander  of  Douglas,  Hugh,  Henry,  and  Freskin  of  Douglas.-  They  were 
therefore  not  only  contemporary  with  the  immediate  descendants  of  Freskin, 
who,  shortly  before  1203,  had  assumed  the  surname  of  Moravia,  but 
like  them  were  emigrants  from  a  southern  neighbourhood.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  Bishop  Brice  persuaded  his  brothers  to  come  northward,  and 
provided  for  the  younger  members  of  the  family.^  But  the  migration  of  the 
Bishop  himself  from  Lesmahagow  to  Moray  remains  to  be  accounted  for, 
which  may  be  done  by  assuming  a  previous  connection  with  the  nortli. 

That  such  a  connection  did  exist  is  proved  by  a  charter  dated  between 
1203  and  1222,  granting  the  tithes  of  the  church  of  Deveth  (now  Daviot)  to 
be  devoted  to  the  maintenance  of  the  fabric  of  the  church  of  Spynie,  then  the 
cathedral  church  of  Moray.-*  Bishop  Brice,  who  makes  this  grant,  states  that 
the  church  of  Daviot  was  devoted  to  this  purpose  at  the  suggestion  and 
request  of  his  uncle,  Freskin  of  Kerdal  ("  ad  instantiam  et  petitionem 
Freskyni  de  Kerdal  avnnculi  nostri "),  Freskin  of  Kerdal  or  Cardell  was  lay 
patron  of  the  cnurch  of  Daviot,  and  was  therefore  probably  proprietor  of 

^  Chronicon  de  Mailroa,  p.  105.  3  Registrum  Moraviense,  pp.  xlv,  xlvi. 

-  Registrum  Moraviense,  pp.  01,  6'2,  81.  ■*  Ihhl.  p.  61. 


tlio  territory  in  which  it  was  situated.  To  this  Morayshire  baron  therefore 
the  Douglases  were  related,  and  his  history,  so  far  as  it  can  be  traced, 
b^'comes  of  importance.  Unhappily  very  little  information  has  been  obtained 
regarding  Freskin  of  Kerdal.  It  has  been  conjectured  "  from  the  peculiarity 
nf  his  name,  that  if  not  a  member,  he  was  at  least  a  relative  "  of  the  famih' 
of  Moravia.^  If  so,  the  extensive  territories  which  that  family  possessed  in 
the  north,  and  the  influence  which  they  could  thus  exert,  might  partly  at 
least  account  for  the  elevation  of  Brice  of  Douglas  to  the  Bishopric  of  Moray, 
as  a  kinsman  of  the  chief  lords  in  the  diocese. 

In  an  endeavour  to  discover  the  ancestry  of  Freskin  of  Kerdal,  his  true 
relationship  to  the  Douglases  and  their  possible  affinity  through  him  to  the 
De  Moravias,  it  is  impossible  to  overlook  the  similarity  of  Christian  names 
in  the  members  of  the  two  families.  In  the  pages  of  the  Kegister  of  Moray, 
Hugh,  William,  Archibald,  Freskin,  and  Alexander  De  Moravia  appear  side 
by  side  with,  or  as  contemporaries  of,  the  nephews  of  Freskin  of  Kerdal, 
Archibald,  Alexander,  Hugh,  Henry,  and  Freskin  of  Douglas.  Such  a 
coincidence  of  Christian  names  may  not  be  accidental ;  it  rather  suggests 
relationship  between  the  families.  The  register  referred  to  gives  evidence  of 
more  than  one  person  bearing  the  surname  of  Moravia,  who  have  not  been 
affiliated  to  the  Morays  of  Sutherland,  Duifus,  or  Petty.  Thus  in  a  charter 
by  Bishop  Brice  gxanting  to  Hugh  of  Moravia,  Lord  of  Dutfus,  the  privilege 
of  a  chaplainry  in  the  Castle  of  Duffus,  two  of  the  witnesses  are  Archibald  of 
^loravia  and  William  his  brother,  who  are  not  identified,  except  in  name,  with 
the  Lords  of  ]\Ioray.-  The  parentage  of  Gilbert  of  jMoravia,  afterwards 
lUshop  of  Caithness,  with  his  brothers  John  and  Eichard,  is  uncertain.^  If, 
therefore,  doubt  rests  on  the  pedigree  of  prominent  members  of  a  family  so 
di.stinguislied  as  that  of  ]\Ioray,  the  descent  of  less-known  persons  such  as 

'   Mr.  Cosmo  Iiiues  ia  Registrum  Moravi-  -  Registrum  Moraviense,  p.  274. 

♦•iiBe,  jireface.  \k  xlv.  3  /j,-,/  p   xHii. 


Freskiii  of  Kerdal  is  still  more  obscure.    In  his  case,  however,  certain  evidence 
exists  which,  though  very  slight,  tends  to  throw  some  light  on  his  ancestry. 

The  parentage  of  Freskin  of  Kerdal  is  the  more  difficult  to  trace,  as  he 
appears  to  have  left  no  male  heirs.  James  of  Kerdal  witnessed  a  charter 
granted  at  Castle  Urquhart  in  1342,^  and  in  1414  Nicholissa  of  Kerdal  was 
one  of  the  heirs-portioners  of  the  barony  of  Kerdal,  William  of  Grame  being 
the  other,  but  no  descent  from  Freskin  of  Kerdal  can  be  traced.  Nicholissa 
of  Kerdal  w^as  also  one  of  the  two  superiors  of  the  lands  of  Dunmaglass, 
in  the  barony  of  Kerdal,  which  were  held  by  Donald,  Thane  of  Cawdor.-  A 
few  years  later,  in  1420,  William  the  Grame,  styling  himself  son  and  heir 
of  the  late  Henry  the  Grame,  resigned  into  the  hands  of  Thomas  Dunbar, 
Earl  of  Moray,  as  overlord,  his  lands  of  Kerdal,  in  favour  of  himself  and 
heirs,  whom  failing,  in  favour  of  his  "gudfadyr,"  William  Hay,  Lord  of 
Lochloy.3  In  1422,  the  same  Earl  released  John  Hay  of  Lochloy  from  his 
promise  to  marry  the  Earl's  daughter,  and  also  gave  up  his  right  to  forty  merks 
of  half  the  barony  of  Kerdal  under  an  entail  between  the  grantee's  father  and 
the  grantee's  "  brother  "  William  Grame.*  A  small  annual  rent  was  paid  to 
the  Bishop  of  Moray  from  the  barony  of  Kerdal  in  1457,  while  the  earldom 
of  Moray  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Crown  after  the  forfeiture  of  Archibald 
Douglas,  Earl  of  :Moray.  In  1 602,  in  the  retour  of  James  Stewart,  Earl 
of  Moray,  as  heir  of  his  mother,  Elizabeth  Stewart,  Countess  of  Moray, 
and  in  subsequent  retours  of  the  Earls  of  Moray,  the  "  lands  of  Cardell " 
are  enumerated  among  their  other  possessions  in  Inverness-shire.^  In  the 
retour  of  William  M'Intosh  of  Torcastle,  as  heir  of  his  father.  Sir  Lachlan, 
in  1634,  the  half-lands  of  Tulloch  and  Ellerig  are  described  as  in  the  barony 
of  Cardell  and  Strathnairn.^     From  these  statements  may  be  gathered  some 

1  Inveraessiana,  p.  56.  ^  The  Thanes  of  Cawdor,  p.  10. 

2  TheThanes  of  Cawdor,  Spalding  Club,  p.  5.  °  Retours,  Inquisitiones  Speciales,  Invcr- 

3  Registrum  Moraviense,  pp.  475,  470.  ness,  Nos.  12,  62.  c  jn^i  y^^  3^3 


j.IiM  of  the  locality  of  Kerdal,  though  its  extent  cannot  be  defined.  It  was 
wholly  or  partly  in  the  present  county  of  Inverness,  in  the  valley  called  Strath- 
nairn,  and  if  the  more  modern  Cardell  applies  to  land  of  the  same  extent  as 
the  ancient  Kerdal,  it  could  not  have  l>een  a  very  large  barony;  But  it  is 
possible  that,  as  Freskin  of  Kerdal  was  patron  of  the  church  of  Daviot,  he 
was  proprietor  of  a  considerable  portion  of  Strathnairn,^  of  which  the  Castle 
of  Daviot  was,  certainly  at  a  later  date,  the  principal  messuage,  xifter  the 
forfeiture  of  Archibald  Douglas,  Earl  of  Moray,  in  1455,  Stratlmairn  was  for 
some  time  in  the  hands  of  the  Crown,  then  in  the  hands  of  the  Ogilvies  of 
r>anff,  and  was  disponed  about  1535  to  Sir  John  Campbell  of  Cawdor.' 

No  evidence  has  been  discovered  of  any  immediate  descendant  of  Freskin 
of  Kerdal,  save  one  daughter  (or  granddaughter),  who  married,  previous  to 
1231,  Sir  Alexander  of  Striuelyn  or  Stirling,  the  founder  of  the  family  of 
that  name  in  Moray.  Bishop  Brice's  grant  to  the  church  of  Spynie  of  the 
church  of  Daviot,  of  which  Freskin  of  Kerdal  was  patron,  has  been  referred 
to.  After  the  Bishop's  death  in  1222,  his  successor  confirmed  the  grant, 
and  Freskin,  the  patron,  was  then  dead  also.^  In  1234,  a  half  davocli  of 
land  near,  and  belonging  to  the  church  of  Daviot,  was  the  subject  of  an 
agreement  between  the  chapter  of  Moray  and  Sir  Alexander  Stirling.  It 
was  arranged  that  Sir  Alexander  and  his  heirs  by  his  wife,  the  daughter  of 
the  deceased  Sir  Freskin  of  Kerdal,  should  hold  the  land  in  question  from 
the  Chapter,  in  feu- farm,  for  certain  payments  and  conditions.*  This  deed  was 
executed  in  duplicate,  and  sealed  by  both  parties  with  their  respective  seals. 

The  name  of  Sir  Alexander  Stirling's  wife  is  not  given  in  the  deed  of 
a,gi"eeraent,  but  evidence  preserved  in  the  charter-chest  of  another  northern 

'  Freskin's  possessions  probably  represented  '^  Registrura  Moraviense,  p.  G5. 

a  large  part,  the  southern  part,  of  the  modern  *  Ih'id.  p.  99.  As  the  wife  of  Sir  Alexander  of 

parish  of  Daviot  and  Dunlichty.  Stirling  is  said  to  be  a  daughter  of  >Sir  Freskin 

of  Kerdal,  she  may  have  been  a  granddaughter 

-  The  Thanes  of  Cawdor,  p.  162.  of  the  uncle  of  Bishop  Brice. 


family  appears  to  supply  iuforniatiou  which  throws  iniich  light  on  the 
family  of  Kerdai.  Sir  Alexander  Stirling  is  believed  to  liave  been  fatlier 
of  Sir  John  Stirling,  who  in  129G  paid  homage  to  King  Edward  the  First 
of  England  for  lands  in  ]\Ioray  and  elsewhere.^  Sir  John  Stirling's  son, 
Alexander  of  Stirling,  and  Elizabeth  his  wife,  daughter  of  Sir  John  de  Bosco, 
joined  in  a  renunciation  of  their  riglit  to  the  lands  of  Kilravock,  which  had 
belonged  to  Elizabeth  Byset,  wife  of  Sir  Andrew  de  Bosco,  mother  of  Sir  John. 
She  had  bestowed  the  lands  on  Hugh  Eose,  first  of  Kilravock,  on  his  marriage 
with  her  daughter  Marie.  Sir  John  de  Bosco  left  no  heirs-male,  and  his  three 
daughters,  as  co-heiresses  and  portioners  of  his  estate,  resigned  to  "William 
Eose,  son  of  Hugh  Eose,  all  their  rights  over  Kilravock.  The  resignation  by 
Elizabeth  de  Bosco  and  her  husband  was  made  on  14th  June  1327.- 

A  connection  between  the  families  of  Stirling  and  that  of  Eose  of 
Kilravock  being  thus  proved,  an  entry  in  an  old  inventory  of  the  latter  family 
becomes  more  important.  The  entry  refers  to  a  charter  of  donation  by 
]\Iarjory  de  Moravia,  widow  of  Sir  Alexander  Stirling,  granting  to  her 
daughter  Isobel,  and  the  heirs  of  her  body,  the  lands  of  Cantra  Freskyn,  to 
be  held  for  payment  yearly  of  a  pair  of  gloves.  This  charter  is  not  dated, 
and  the  only  one  of  the  witnesses  whose  name  has  been  preserved  is  Archibald, 
Bishop  of  Moray,  who  held  that  see  from  1253  to  1298.^  The  earlier  of  these 
dates  may  be  the  nearest  to  the  date  of  the  charter,  as  Sir  John  Stu'liug  was 
the  head  of  the  family  in  1296.  The  grant  to  Isobella  Stirling  was  probably 
intended  as  a  marriage  portion,  and  does  not  imply  that  slie  was  an  heiress. 
It  is  also  worthy  of  note  that  the  lands  of  Cantray  or  Kintray  were  not  far 
from  Daviot  and  the  so-called  barony  of  Kerdai  or  Cardell,  and  were  included 
in  the  grant  of  his  father's  lands  to  William,  son  of  Freskin,  in  1171.     If, 

1  The  Stirlings  of  Keir,  by  William  Fraser,  -  Rose  of  Kilravock,  Spalding  Club.  pp.  ,V2. 

p.  14  ;  Ragman  Rolls,  Bannatyne  Club.  1S:34,        114  ;  History  of  Beauly  Priory,  )>p.  Go,  07. 
pp.  9:{,  94,  11 D.  '  Rose  of  Kilravock,  p.  120. 


therefore,  Marjory  de  Moravia,  here  designed  as  the  widow  of  Sir  Alexander 
Stirling,  was  the  daughter  of  Sir  Freskin  of  Kerdal,  who  was  Sir  Alexander's 
wife  in  1234,  the  proof  that  Freskin  of  Kerdal  was  a  descendant  of  Freskin 
of  Strabrock  and  Duffus  would  be  complete.  But  the  evidence  warrants  no 
more  than  the  possibility  that  he  may  have  been  a  younger  son  of  William, 
son  of  Freskin,  and  a  grandson  of  the  older  Freskin. 

The  precise  relationship  of  Freskin  of  Kerdal  to  the  early  ancestors  of 
the  family  of  Douglas  is  not  determined  by  the  statement  that  the  former 
was  the  uncle  of  Bishop  Brice.  Had  the  term  used  been  the  definite  word 
patrnus,  father's  brother,  and  had  the  relationship  of  Freskin  of  Kerdal  to 
the  family  of  Moray  been  conclusively  ascertained,  the  problem  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  Douglases  would  be  so  far  solved,  by  William  of  Douglas, 
father  of  Bishop  Brice  and  his  brothers,  being  a  brother  of  Freskin  of 
Kerdal,  and  so  a  descendant  in  common  with  the  founders  of  the  family 
of  Moray  from  the  first  known  Freskin.  But  as  the  term  of  relationship 
between  Freskin  of  Kerdal  and  Bishop  P.rice  is  not  pafnms,  but  the 
indefinite  word  avimaihcs,  this  does  not  follow  ;  they  may  have  been  only 
brothers-in-law,  Freskin  having  married  a  sister  of  William  of  Douglas,  or 
William's  wife  being  a  sister  of  Freskin,  in  which  case  the  question  of 
origin  is  where  it  was  at  first.  Further  light  on  this  point  may  be  obtained 
from  a  consideration  uf  the  armorial  bearings  of  the  family  of  Douglas,  in 
relation  to  the  Moravias  and  Freskin  of  Kerdal. 

The  historian  Wyntown  has  been  quoted  for  the  opinion  of  his  day,  that 
the  Morays  and  Douglases  were  of  kin  because  they  bore  "  the  sternys 
(stars)  set  in  lyk  manere."  It  has  already  been  stated  that  the  blazon  of 
Douglas  differed  somewhat  from  the  blazon  of  ]\Ioray,  as  borne  by  the  houses 
of  Sutherland   and    Bothwell.     The   familv   of   Sutherland    was   descended 


from  Hugh,  the  eldest  son  of  Ireskin  of  Duff  us,  while  the  family  of  Bothwell 
derived  their  origin  from  Freskin's  second  son  William.  The  blazons  of 
Sutherland  and  Bothwell,  an  arrangement  of  three  stars,  two  and  one,  may 
therefore  be  taken  as  representing  the  true  blazon  of  ^Nforay.  The  family 
of  Douglas  also  blazoned  three  stars,  but  arranged  in  a  line  on  a  chief 
In  reference  to  the  seals  of  William,  tirst  Earl  of  Douglas,  wh*)  held  the 
Douglas  estates  from  1348  to  1384,  and  whose  armorial  bearings  are  well 
known,  a  recent  writer  remarks — "  He  had  three  if  not  four  seals,  all  givin-^ 
arms  such  as  a  herald  of  that  day  would  have  blazoned  out  of  a  conjunction 
of  a  coat  of  three  stars  only,  with  an  augmentation  of  a  heart."  ^  This 
remark  is  borne  out  by  the  evidence  of  the  seals  themselves,  as  portrayed  in 
this  work.  It  may  be  added  that  the  augmentation  of  tlie  heart  in  base  was 
not  used  until  after  the  death  of  tlie  Good  Sir  James,  being  lirst  borne  by 
his  son  William,  who  succeeded  him,  and  became  Lord  of  Douglas.  It  was 
no  part  of  tlie  earlier  described  armorial  bearings  of  the  family. 

No  seals  of  the  Good  Sir  James  of  Douglas  have,  so  far  as  is  known, 
been  preserved,  nor,  as  regards  his  predecessors,  have  any  charters  lieen 
found  to  which  William  of  Douglas,  the  first  on  record,  or  Archibald,  liis 
son,  w-ere  principals,  and  it  cannot  be  known  whether  they  used  armorial 
seals  or  not.  But  the  son  of  Archibald,  Sir  William  of  Douglas,  third  lord 
of  Douglas,  was  a  party  between  1253  and  1266  to  several  important 
documents,  and  to  these  he  appended  his  seal.-  One  of  these  documents, 
a  marriage-contract,  dated  6th  AprH  1259,  between  Sir  William  Douglas  and 
Sir  Hugli  xVbernethy  for  the  marriage  of  Hugh  of  Douglas,  son  of  Sir 
William,  with  Sir  Hugh's  sister,  is  still  preserved  in  the  Douglas  Chartcr- 

1  Registrum  Moraviense,  preface,  pp.  xlvi,  Episcopatus  Glasguensis,   vol.  i,  p.  103.      In 

•  12fiG,  a  resignation  to  the  monks  of  Kelso,  in 

-  In  1253,  a  convention  between  the  Bishop  presence  of  King  Alexander  iii.  and  his  mas- 

of  Glasgow  and  Walter  of  Moray.— Registrum  nates.— Liber  de  Cakhon.  vol.  i.  pp.  1  j.")-  I5S. 

A  RMOn L [  L  SEA  L  OF  SIR    WILL L 1 M  OF  DO  UGLA ^;   1 2 9  G .  1 

cliest.^  The  seal  is  no  longer  attached,  but  was  still  appended  (in  a  woni 
condition)  in  the  time  of  Godscroft,  wlio  describes  the  contents  uf  the 
document  so  minutely  as  to  leave  no  doubt  that  he  had  seen  the  originnl. 
He  also  describes  the  seal  as  being  "  longer  then  broad,  fashioned  like  a  heart, 
I  he  letters  thereon  are  worn  away,  and  not  discernable  save  onely  (W), 
and  the  armes  seeme  to  be  three  starres  or  mullets  at  the  upper  end 
tlicreof ;  but  I  cannot  be  bold  to  say  absolutely  they  were  so."- 

This  cautious  description  is  probably  accurate,  as  it  is  corroborated  by 
Sir  Eichard  Maitland.^  It  is  the  same  device  which  is  figured  on  the  seal  of 
Sir  William  le  Hardi,  appended  to  his  deed  of  homage  to  Edward  the  First  of 
England  in  1296,  with  tliis  addition,  that  the  three  stars  are  borne  on  a  chief, 
a  refinement  which  was  then  coming  into  use.  In  this  seal,  a  representation 
of  which  is  here  given,  the  shield  is  surrounded  by  w^hat  are  apparently 
three  lizards,  and  the  legend  s  :  dxi  :  wiL  .  .  .  mi  :  de  :  dvglas. 

It  is  somewhat  remarkable  to  find  a  similar  conjunction  of  stars  on  the 
seal,  in  1296,  of  Sir  John  Stirling  of  Moray,  a  son  or  descendant  of  that 
Sir  Alexander  Stirling  who  married  the  daughter  of  Freskin  of  Kerdal.  This 
seal  is  the  more  noteworthy,  as  it  blazons  six  stars,  three  at  the  upper  end 

^  VoL  iii  of  this  work,  p.  1.  ane  contract  of  mariage.  .  .  .  The  quilk  evi- 

-  Houses  of    Douglas  and  Angus,   edition  dent  and  indentoure  (of  1259)  the  said  Justice 

1644,  p.  13.  Clark  did  schaw  to  vTnquhile  Henrye  Bischope 

'  Sir  Richard  writes,  "  Schir  Johnne  Bel-  of  Ross  with  the   Erie  (sic)  of  Douglass  seill 

lenden  of  Auchinknowill,  knycht,  prinoipale  hingand  thairat,  being  bot  three  starnis  alaner- 

Justice  Clarke  of  Scotland,  schew  to  me  that  lie  without  the  bludie  harte." — [MS.  History 

he  saw  and  red  ane  indentoure  in  maner  of  at  Hamilton  Palace.] 

VOL.  I.      .  f. 


of  the  shield,  similar  to  Douglas,  although  not  on  a  chief,  and  under  tliem 

other  three  aminged  two  and  one,  as  in  the  arms  of  IMoray.^     It  was  no 

uncommon  tiling  for  vassals  of  great  lords  to  assume  the  arms  of  their  feudal 

superiors,  with  some  difterence  of  arrangement  or  tincture.     These  were  called 

arms  of  dependence,  and  the  practice  was  adopted  in  IVforaj  as  elsewhere. 

Thus  the  family  of  Brodie,  who  held  lands  in  Moray,  blazon  a  chevron  gules 

between  three  stars,  two  and  one,  azure.-     The  family  of  Innes  also  blazoned 

three  stars,  two  and  o)ie.     This,  however,  was  not  the  blazon  first  assumed 

by  them.     The  three  stars  appear  on  the  seal  of  Walter  Innes  of  Innes  in 

1431,  but  a  seal  used  by  an  earlier  member  of  the  family  in  1296  shows 

only  a  central  ornament  representing  a  star  of  six  points.=^     Other  vassals  or 

aUied   families  adopted  other  arrangements  of  the  stars.      Thus  Mary  de 

Moravia,  daughter   and  coheiress  of  Freskin   de   Moravia,  Lord  of  Dufius, 

married    before    1269    Sir   Eeginald   le    Chene   the    younger,   and    between 

1292  and  1 296  her  husband  or  son,  Sir  Eeginald  le  Chene,  used  a  seal  showing 

a  shield  charged  with  three  stars  on  a  bend,  between  ten  cross  crosslets.* 

About    1350,  Muriella   of  Doune,  widow   of  William   Eose  of  Kilravock, 

granted  to  her  second  son,  Andrew  Eose,  certain  lands,  of  which  Sir  John 

Moray  of  Bothwell  was  superior.     She  affixed  to  the  document  her  seal. 

which  bears  on  a  shield  her  husband's  cognisance  of  the  water-budget,  below 

three  stars  in  chief,  the  last  being  similar  to  the  stars  of  Douofas.^ 

The  seal  of  Sir  John  of  Stirling  in  1296  differs,  however,  from  all  those 
referred  to  in  uniting  the  cognisances  usually  assigned  to  each  of  the  t^  o 
famHies  of  Douglas  and  Moray.  His  estates  lay  in  Moray;  he  might 
therefore  have  naturally   assumed  the   three   stars  of   Moray   as   arms    of 

1  Seal  of  Sir  John  Stirling  of  Moray,  at-  ^  The  Familie  of  Innes,  engravings  of  seals 

tached  to  the  llagman  Roll  of  I20G,  figured  on  pp.  56  and  69. 

in     "The    StirHngs    of    Keir,     by     William  ^  Registrum  Moraviense,  preface,  p.  .xxxvi,; 

Fraser,"  p.  14.  j-ogg  of  Kilravock,  p.  20,  and  engraved  seal  on 

-  Shaw's  Moray,  edition  J  SS2,  vol.  ii.  p.  2.52.  p.  H;".                               a  ma. -o  119 


\  tlepenclence.  But  why  should  he  add  to  these  the  stars  of  1  )ouglas,  unless  they 
were  arms  of  alliance,  and  that  through  the  female  line  he  claimed  a  common 
ancestry  ?  That  common  ancestry,  so  far  as  known,  could  only  be  througli 
Freskin  of  Kerdal,  who  was,  on  the  one  hand,  the  uncle  of  Bishop  Brice 
of  Douglas,  and  on  the  other,  the  father-in-law  of  Sir  Alexander  Stirling,  the 
progenitor  of  Sir  John  Stirling.  The  testimony  of  Sir  John  Stirling's  seal 
may  therefore  be  added  in  support  of  what  was  formerl}^  stated  in  reference 
to  Marjory  de  Moravia,  the  widow  of  Sir  Alexander  Stirling,  being  also 
the  daughter  of  Freskiu  of  Kerdal,  and  strengthening  the  probability  that 
he  was  a  member  of  the  Moravia  family,  perhaps  a  grandson  of  the  first 
Freskin  who  migrated  from  Strabrock  to  Duftus.  It  cannot,  however,  be 
overlooked  that  the  seal  in  question  also  suggests  that  the  family  of  Douglas 
may  have  adopted  the  three  stars  in  chief  in  memory  of  their  alliance  with 
Freskin  of  Kerdal,  though  as  to  this  there  is  no  proof. 

While  the  facts  stated  in  the  preceding  pages  are  interesting,  presenting 
for  the  first  time  tlie  arguments  for  this  theory  in  a  new  and  connected  form, 
the  chain  of  evidence  is  not  complete,  and  no  definite  conclusion  can  be 
drawn.  The  proved  kinship  of  the  family  of  Douglas  with  a  Morayshire 
baron,  the  similarity  of  Christian  names,  and  also  of  armorial  bearings,  while 
these  tend  to  connect  the  Douglases  closely,  not  only  with  the  province  of 
Moray,  but  also  with  the  family  of  Moray,  do  not  prove  that  the  two  families 
of  Douglas  and  Moray  had  a  common  origin.  That  connection  may  have 
been  only  by  intermarriage,  as  the  alternative  that  William  of  Douglas  was  a 
brother  of  Freskin  of  Kerdal,  and  therefore  possibly  deriving  from  a  Flemish 
ancestor,  though  not  inadmissible,  is  not  supported  by  decisive  evidence. 

Nor  on  the  origin  of  the  family  of    Douglas,  can  anything  certain  be 
learned  from  the  narrative  of  the  family  historian,  Hume  of  Godscroft.     He 


is  so  impressed  with  the  antiquity  of  that  House,  that  he  declares  its  origin 
incapable,  on  account  of  that  antiquity,  of  "  an  exact  and  infallible  demon- 
stration." Yet  he  asserts  regarding  his  heroes,  that  "  according  to  the  constant 
and  generall  tradition  of  men,  thus  was  their  originall,"  and  proceeds  to  relate 
how,  during  the  reign  of  Solvatliius,  ICing  of  Scotland,  his  throne  was  assailed 
by  a  pretender,  Donald  Bane,  who,  having  possessed  himself  of  the  Hebrides, 
aspired  to  set  the  crown  of  Scotland  also  on  his  head.  He  gathered  a 
considerable  army,  and  encountered  the  royal  forces  sent  against  him  with 
such  effect,  tliat  he  nearly  gained  the  victory.  But  "  a  certain  noble  man, 
disdaining  to  see  so  bad  a  cause  have  so  good  successe,"  made  an  attack  with 
his  followers  on  the  usurper's  army,  and  turned  the  battle  in  favour  of  the 
king.  The  latter  afterwards  inquiring  who  this  loyal  nobleman  was,  received 
the  reply,  "  '  Sholto  Du  glasse,'  that  is  to  say.  Behold  yonder  black,  grey 
man."  Under  this  title,  Solvathius  promoted  his  loyal  subject  in  his  service, 
and  bestowed  upon  him  extensive  domains,  which  from  him  took  the  name 
of  Douglasdale.     These  events  occuiTcd,  it  is  said,  in  the  year  767. 

For  proof  of  this  narrative,  Godscroft  refers  not  only  to  tradition,  "  truth 
delivered  from  hand  to  hand,"  but  also  to  a  "  certain  manuscript  of  great 
antiquity,"  which  had  been  seen  and  perused  by  AVilliam,  tenth  Earl  of  Angus, 
while  residing  in  the  north  of  Scotland  in  1595.  Whatever  this  manu- 
script may  have  been,  it  seems  to  have  told  the  same  tale  as  Hector  Boece, 
to  whom,  as  well  as  to  Buchanan  and  Holinshed,  Godscroft  refers  as  the 
historians  whom  he  consulted.  It  need  scarcely  be  added,  that  Solvathius 
is  a  king  of  Scotland  unknown  to  accurate  history,  and  though  Donald  Bane 
is  a  historical  personage,  his  insurrection  did  not  take  place  until  several 
centuries  after  the  date  assigned  to  Sholto  Douglas. 

To  Sholto,  according  to  Godscroft,  succeeded  his  son  Hugh,  who  had  two 
sous :  Hugh,  who  inherited  the  family  estates,  and  William,  who  is  claimed  as 
the  progenitor  of  the  family  of  the  Scoti  in  Italy.     Achaius,  the  successor  of 


Solvathius,  having  made  a  league  with  tlie  Emperor  Charlemagne,  sent  an 
iiriny  of  four  thousand  men  to  assist  the  Emperor  in  his  Italian  wars. 
William  Douglas  accompanied  this  auxiliary  force,  but  falling  sick  on  his 
way  homeward,  remained  at  Piacenza,  and  tinally  settled  there.  While 
Ciodscroft  was  writing  his  history,  William,  the  eleventh  Earl  of  Angus, 
travelling  in  France,  met  with  some  noblemen  who  claimed  descent  from  this 
William  Douglas.  A  correspondence  ensued,  which,  however,  proves  nothing 
more  than  that  the  representatives  of  the  Scoti  in  Italy  believed  themselves 
descended  from  a  Douglas  who  came  from  Scotland  in  the  time  of  Charle- 
magne.^ The  story  of  Achaius  and  of  the  treaty  with  tlie  Emperor  about  the 
year  800,  is,  so  far  as  history  is  concerned,  a  myth,  and  the  tradition  of  the 
founding  of  the  Scoti  of  Italy  by  William  Douglas,  grandson  of  Sholto,  is  so 
far  a  fable.-  On  the  other  hand,  the  alleged  connection  between  the  Scoti  of 
Piacenza  and  the  family  of  Douglas,  may  have  a  basis  of  fact.  During  the 
reigns  of  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  Charleses,  or  between  1364  and  1460, 
many  Scots  went  to  France,  and  the  Douglases  not  only  were  frequent  visitors 
to  the  Continent,  but  also  possessed  large  estates  in  France. 

After  this  digression  on  the  subject  of  the  Scoti  of  Piacenza,  Godscroft 
comes  to  a  sudden  pause  in  his  narrative,  and  he  is  compelled  to  confess  that 
for  the  space  of  nearly  three  centuries  he  can  find  no  trace  of  his  heroes. 
The  next  whom  he  introduces  to  the  reader  is  a  William,  first  Lord  of 
Douglas,  who,  he  alleges,  was  created  Lord  Douglas  at  a  Parliament  held 
at  Forfar  by  Iving  Malcolm  Canmore,  in  the  year  1057  or  1061.  The 
two  sons  of  this  William  were,  it  is  said,  Sir  John  Douglas  of  Douglas- 
burn,  and  William  of  Glendinning.  Between  these  two,  Godscroft  is  puzzled 
to  find   a   successor   to  the  Douglas  estates.      Sir  John's  son,  William,  is, 

'  Correspondence  printed  pp.  291-302,  vol.       Scot,  and  his   partners  of  the    "  Scotti "  of 
iv.  of  this  work.  Placentia,  and  their  merchandise  throughout 

-  On  loth  November  1279,  King  Edward  I.        his  realm.     [Calendar  of  documents  relating  to 
granted  a  protection  for  three  years  to  Albert       Scotland,  vol.  li.  No.  1G7.] 


however,  the  next  in  possession,  about  1152,  to  whom  succeeds  his  son 
Arch ibakl,  whose  son,  William,  was  the  granter  of  the  Indenture  of  125:», 
already  referred  to,  when  the  historian  first  founds  upon  authentic  record. 

Of  the  earlier  generations  commemorated  by  Godscroft,  only  the  last 
three  names,  William,  Archibald,  and  William  Douglas,  are  found  on 
record,  as  will  be  shown  in  their  respective  memoirs.  The  alleged 
Parliament  of  Malcolm  Canmore  in  1057  or  lOGl,  in  which  the  kinu 
created  numerous  earls  and  other  nobles,  is  a  myth  invented  by  Hectoi- 
Boece,  who  probably  confused  it  with  some  real  event  of  a  later  period. 

Godscroft's  history,  therefore,  so  far  as  the  origin  of  the  family  of  Douglas 
is  concerned,  is  utterly  unreliable,  and  where  he  does  touch  upon  genuine 
history,  the  events  are  so  misdated  as  to  seem  mythical.  He  had  some 
perception  of  his  failure  to  throw  Hght  upon  the  ancestry  of  his  heroes,  for 
he  cries  out  more  than  once  against  the  darkness  of  the  ages  which  had 
obscured  their  brilliant  deeds,  and  handed  down  no  trace  to  posterity.  Not 
content  with  tracing  their  pedigree  back  to  the  year  767,  he  exclaims, 
"  We  do  not  yet  know  them  fully ;  we  do  not  know  them  in  the  fountain, 
but  in  the  stream;  not  in  the  root,  but  in  the  stock  and  stemme;  for  we 
know  not  who  was  the  first  mean  man,  that  did  by  his  vertue  raise  himselfe 
above  the  vulgar  to  such  eminent  place  and  state,  as  our  Sholto  behoved  to 
have  been  of,  before  he  wan  the  battell,  and  got  the  name  of  Douglas,  which 
hath  drowned  his  former  name,"  etc.^ 

There  is,  however,  something  to  be  said  in  favour  of  Hume  of  Godscroft's 
claim  for  the  ancient  lineage  of  the  Douglases,  when  looked  at  from  thf 
traditional  and  even  the  purely  historical  point  of  view.  In  consequence  of 
the  fabulous  framework  in  which  he  has  set  his  historical  facts,  the  story 
of  "Sholto  Duglasse"  has  been  condemned  without  mercy,  while  hitherto 
no  one  seems  to  have  inquired  how  far  it  had  a  foundation  in  genuine 
*  Houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus,  edition  1644,  preface. 



history.  Godscroft  indeed  claims  that  his  tale  of  Sholto  Douyias  iu  the 
time  of  King  Solvathius  was  according  to  the  "  constant  and  generall 
tradition  of  men."  This  statement  is  doubtless  exaggerated,  hut  may  reason- 
ably be  taken  to  refer  to  some  legend  preserved  in  the  family  of  Douglas, 
"  delivered  from  hand  to  hand,"  regarding  their  first  prominent  ancestor. 

Stripped  of  the  mythical,  Godscroft's  story  is  simple  eno\igh,  and  quite 
within  the  bounds  of  possibility.  It  is  that  the  earliest  known  ancestor  of 
the  Douglases  distinguished  himself  on  the  side  of  the  King  of  Scotland  in 
an  engagement  between  the  royal  troops  and  those  of  an  insurgent  chief 
called  Donald  Bane,  who  claimed  the  crown ;  that  the  royal  troops  were 
victorious,  and  the  rebel  leader  slain.  Had  Godscroft  not  been  misled  by 
the  authorities  he  consulted,  or  had  he  stated  that  Donald  Bane  claimed  the 
crown  of  William  the  Lion,  and  that  the  king's  forces  marched  against  the 
rebel,  who  was  slain,  he  would  have  been  perfectly  accurate.  If,  further,  in 
accordance  with  his  tradition,  he  had  declared  that  the  first  Douglas  fought 
against  Donald  Bane  and  thus  became  famous,  the  statement  might  have 
been  quite  true,  as  there  is  evidence  that  Donald  Bant;  and  the  first  recorded 
Douglas  were  contemporaneous. 

Godscroft,  however,  was  not  to  blame ;  he  did  not  invent  his  story :  his 
information,  except  when  drawn  from  family  charters,  depended  on  inaccurate 
historians,  and  he  had  no  opportunity  of  basing  the  history  of  his  heroes 
on  actual  facts.  He  probably  found  that  family  tradition  connected  the 
ancestor  of  the  Douglases  with  the  insurrection  of  Donald  Bane.  He 
consulted  previous  writers  to  learn  when  this  event  took  place,  and  Boece 
and  Buchanan,  the  authorities  quoted  by  him,^  l^oth  refer  the  last  rising  of 

*  Boece  (or  Boetius),  Holinshed,  and  Buch-  during  the  reigu  of  King  James  the  Sixth. 

anan,    are    the    historians    whom    Godscroft  Godscroft  had  access  also  to  a  MS.  of  Fordun 

quotes  at  this  stage  of  his  histori'.     Bellenden's  which  he  calls  the  Black  Book  of  Scone,  but 

translation  of  Boece  was  made  about  1530,  and  he  does  not  qnote  it  in  the  early  portions 

printed  so  early  as   1541.      Buchanan  WTote  of  his  narrative. 


Donald  Bane  to  the  year  767,  in  the  time  of  an  imaginary  King  Solvathius. 
Godscroft  therefore  was  obliged  to  place  the  ancestor  of  the  Douglases  at 
that  date,  which  he  doubtless  did  all  the  more  readily,  that  the  mythical 
account  of  a  Parliament  at  Forfar,  in  1057,  supplied  him  with  evidence  for 
a  generation  or  two,  between  his  first  Sholto  and  the  authentic  William  of 
Douglas  of  charter  record.  Had  the  prominence  of  the  first  known  Douglas 
not  been  associated  in  Godscroft's  mind  with  the  insurrection  of  Donald 
Bane,  there  was  no  reason  why  he  should  have  fixed  upon  that  event 
as  the  point  from  which  to  deduce  the  ancestry  of  his  heroes.  Many 
other  incidents  were  equally  available  on  which  to  found  an  imaginary 
descent.  But  as  Godscroft's  traditional  authority  linked  the  two  events 
together,  he  dated  the  Douglas  pedigree  from  the  period  which  the  authors 
he  consulted  assigned  to  the  insurrection  in  question. 

The  true  narrative  of  Donald  Bane  may  now  be  briefly  given.  He  was, 
as  he  styled  himself,  the  son  of  "William  Fitz  Duncan,  a  natural  grandson 
of  King  Malcolm  Canmore.  Donald  therefore  claimed  to  be  of  royal 
lineage,  and  the  true  heir  of  the  throne  of  Scotland,  then  occupied  by  King 
William  the  Lion.  King  William  having  given  offence  to  the  Celtic  portion 
of  his  subjects,  some  of  the  leading  men  made  overtures  to  Donald  Bane,  and 
invited  him  to  assert  his  claim.  The  King  was  absent  in  Xormandy  when 
the  insurrection  broke  out,  but  returned  immediately  and  took  the  field 
against  the  insurgent  leader.  Donald  Bane  had  by  this  time  gathered  a 
considerable  force,  and  infested  the  district  of  Eoss,  where  the  people,  and 
probably  also  those  of  jMoray,  flocked  to  his  standard.  But  he  did  not  on 
this  occasion  face  the  royal  troops,  and  King  William  returned  to  the  south, 
after  strengthening  his  garrisons  in  the  northern  districts,  and  erecting  the 
castles  of  Dunscath  and  Redcastle.^ 

This  was  in  1179,  or  between  that  year  and  1181.     Some  years  later, 

^  Chronicon  de  Mailros,  p.  90  ;  Fordnn,  edition  1871,  vol.  i.  p.  268. 


King  Williaiu,  whose  attention  had  meanwhile  been  occupied  by  a  serious 
robelh'on  in  Galloway,  and  other  disturbances  in  the  south,  was  again 
coinpelled  to  march  against  Donald  Bane.  The  latter  had  during  the 
interval  maintained  himself  in  the  district  north  of  the  Spey,  ravaging  the 
territory  which  belonged  or  adhered  to  the  Crown.  Fordun  says,  that  for 
no  little  time  the  usurper  held  the  whole  of  Moray,  and  it  had  become 
necessary  for  the  king,  if  he  was  not  to  lose  his  kingdom,  to  kill  or  capture 
this  claimant  to  the  throne.^  King  William  was  unable  to  attempt  this 
until  the  year  1187,  when,  with  the  whole  available  military  force  of 
Scotland,  he  advanced  to  Inverness.  Among  those  who  accompanied  the 
king  was  Eoland,  a  grandson  of  Fergus,  Lord  of  Galloway.  It  is  stated  that 
in  a  difficulty  which  arose  among  the  nobles  as  to  the  leadership  of  the  army, 
which  was  to  march  without  the  king  against  Donald  Bane,  Eoland  remained 
faithful  to  the  royal  authority,  and  putting  himself  at  the  head  of  three 
thousand  of  his  own  followers,  went  in  search  of  the  rebel  chief,  while 
the  king  remained  with  the  main  portion  of  the  army  at  Inveruess.- 

Other  accounts,  however,  state  that  the  king  sent  his  earls  and  barons 
with  the  Scots  and  Galloway  men  to  subdue  the  enemy;  that  a  dispute 
arose,  and  then  it  was  agreed  to  send  out  a  foraging  or  plundering  party. 
Accordingly  nearly  three  thousand  warlike  young  men  were  chosen  to 
go  out  on  such  an  errand,  among  whom  were  the  household  (familia)  of 
Pioland  Fitz  Uchtred.-'  It  does  not  appear  from  this  that  he  himself  led 
this  guerrilla  force,  but  be  that  as  it  may,  while  these  young  men  were 
scouring  the  country,  they,  or  a  detachment  of  them — Fordun  says  two 
thousand — came  unexpectedly  upon  Donald  Bane  and  his  troops,  on  a 
nioor   called   Mamgarvy,  near   Moray.      The  insurgent   leader  seeing   that 

Celtic    Scotland,    vol.    L    p.  47S,    and            '  Benedictus  Abbas,  a  contemporary  chro- 

aathorities  there  quoted.  nicler,    quoted    in    Celtic    Scotland,    vol.    i. 

-  Robertson's    Scotland   under  her   Early       p.      470,      note  ;     Chronicon      de     Mailros, 

Kings,  vol.  i.  p.  392.  p.  90. 

. vor,.  I.  r,     . 



the  kiug's  troops  were  few  in  comparison  of  his  own  men,  rushed  to 
battle.  But  the  royal  forces  manfully  withstood  his  onset,  and  in  the 
end  were  completely  victorious,  Donald  Bane,  witli  live  hundred  of  his 
followers  beincj  left  dead  on  the  field.  The  date  of  this  decisive  engac^e- 
ment  v.-as  the  31st  July  1187.' 

It  is  at  a  period  contemporaneons  with  this  victory  at  Mamgarvy,  or 
between  1174  and  1199,  that  the  earliest  recorded  ancestor  of  the  Douglases, 
William  of  Douglas,  appears  for  the  first  time  as  a  witness  to  royal  charters 
and  others  writs.  It  has  been  asserted  that,  as  the  Douglases  "  were 
not  among  the  Magnates  Scotiae,  they  appear  not  as  witnesses  to  the 
charters  of  David  i.,  or  his  grandsons  Malcolm  iv.  and  William,  or  of 
Alexander  ii."  -  This,  however,  is  disproved  by  evidence  already  given, 
that  William  of  Douglas  and  his  son  Archibald  both  attended  the  Court 
of  King  William  the  Lion.  Their  appearance  on  record  at  the  period  in 
question  may  of  course  be  a  mere  coincidence,  but  when  to  this  fact  is  added 
the  connection  they  undoubtedly  had  with  the  province  of  ]\Ioray,  where  the 
final  struggle  and  defeat  of  Donald  Bane  actually  took  place,  Godscroft's 
tradition,  stripped  of  embellishments,  would  suggest  that  the  historical 
William  of  Douglas,  either  as  a  loyal  resident  in  Moray,  or  as  one  of  the 
king's  military  vassals  from  the  south  or  from  Douglasdale,  took  part  against 
the  historical  Donald  Bane,  and  so  brought  himself  into  special  notice. 

Although  the  fact  that  William,  the  first  Douglas  on  record,  was  contem- 
poraneous with  Donald  Bane,  throws  no  additional  light  on  the  origin  of 
the  family  of  Douglas,  it  is  legitimate  to  conclude  that  William  Douglas 
was  the  person  to  whom  Godscroft's  tradition  properly  refers.  He  is 
historically  the  first  of  his  race,  the  foremost  to  bring  it  on  the  stage  of 
history,  and  history  and  tradition  alike  point  to  him  as  the  first  known 
Lord  of  Douglas. 

^  Fordun,  edition  1S7I,  vol.  i.  p.  *2(kS.  '     -  Chalmers's   "Caledonia,"  vol.  i.  p.  ."SO. 



In  answer  to  Godscroft's  declaration  that  the  Douglases  were  not  known 
"  in  the  fountain,  but  in  the  stream ;  not  in  the  root,  but  in  the  stock 
nnJ  stemme,  for  we  know  not  who  was  the  first  mean  man,"  etc.,  a  more 
recent  historian,  George  Chalmers,  the  author  of  "  Caledonia,"  remarks  that 
if  the  writer  "had  opened  his  eyes  he  might  have  seen  the  first  mean 
man  of  this  family."  Chalmers  then  asserts  that  he  will  produce  the  object 
I  of  inquiry,  which  he  accordingly  does,  as  he  believes,  in  the  person  of 
"Theobald  Flamaticus,"  Theobald  the  Fleming,  who  between  1147  and 
1160  received  a  grant  of  lands  on  the  Douglas  water.^  Chalmers  is  so 
satisfied  with  this  statement  that  he  pronounces  this  grant  to  be  "the 
first  link  of  the  chain  of  title-deeds  to  Douglasdale,"  and  declares  that  the 
family  of  Douglas  "  must  relinquish  their  original  domain,  or  acknowledge 
their  Flemish  descent."  But  this  assertion  has,  in  the  light  of  later  research, 
been  shown  to  be  erroneous,  as  the  lands  given  to  Theobald  were  not  in 
Douglasdale,  but  in  the  parish  of  Lesmahagow,  which  belonged  to  the  Abbey 
of  Kelso. 

Local  research  defines  the  lands  given  to  Theobald  to  be  identical  with 
Folkaristoun  or  Folkarton.-  If  so,  they  could  not  have  remained  long  in 
Tlieobald's  hands,  as  between  1208  and  1218,  Henry,  Abbot  of  Kelso,  granted 
to  Richard,  son  of  Solph,  the  lands  of  Folcaristun,  which  his  father  and 
ancestors  held,  though  it  would  appear  that  they  were  only  sub-tenants." 
Chalmers,  in  supporting  his  argument  as  to  Theobald,  states  that  at  a  later 
date  his  descendants  received  other  gi-ants  of  land  on  Douglas  water  from 
another  Abbot  of  Kelso.     Eeference  is  here  made  to  the  lands  of  Poueil,  or 

*  Chalmers's  Caledonia,  vol.  i.  p.  579.  Folkerton,   which  is  partly  in  Lesmahagow, 

'  Mr.   G.    "V.    Irving  in  "  Upper  W'ard  of  and     partly     in      Douglas     parish.  —  \lhvi. 

L»aarksbire,"  vol.   ii.   p.    224.       This  hold-  p.  238.] 

in^'  was    probablj'  larger   than    the    modern  '^  Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  i.  p.  7S. 


that  portion  of  them  in  the  territory  of  Lesmahagow,  which  in  1270  was  granted 
to  Sir  William  of  Douglas.  But  that  grant  was  made  only  for  life,  and  the 
lands  of  Poneil  had  been  the  subject  of  a  claim  by  the  Folkarton  family.^ 

In  corroboration  of  the  possibility  that  Theobald  did  not  remain  long 

settled  on  Douglas  water,  and  as  suggestive  of  his  real  descendants,  it  may  be 

noted  that  his  name  occurs  elsewhere  in  an  entirely  different  connection. 

Between   1204  and   1211,  Umfrid  de  Berkelay  granted   to   the   Abbey  of 

Arbroath  the  lands  of  Balfeith  and  certain  rights  over  his  fee  of  Conveth.- 

This  Humphrey  is  claimed  by  Chalmers  as  a  brother  of  "Walter  de  Berkelay 

of  Inverkeillor  and  Eedcastle,  Chamberlain  of  Scotland  from  1165  to  1189, 

who  is  fiurther  assumed  to  be  a  scion  of  the  southern  family  of  Berkelay.^ 

The  relationship  between  Walter  and  Humphrey  is  not  proved,  but  if  they 

were  brothers,  theii-  father  has  hitherto  been  overlooked.     In  a  lease  by  the 

Abbot  of  Arbroath  in  1242  to  John  Wishart,  of  lands  in  the  parish  of  Con- 

veth,  they  are  described  as  granted  by  King  William  the  Lion  to  "  Umfrid  de 

Berkelay,   son   of  Theobald,"*   who   may  or   may  not   be   the   Fleming  of 

Folkarton,  but  it  is  not  improbable,  as  many  Flemings  held  lands  on  the 

east  coast.     In  any  case  the  descent  of  the  Berkelays  from  Theobald  is  more 

clearly  proved  than  that  of  the  Douglases.     It  d(jes  not,  however,  appear  that 

the  modern  family  of  Barclay  or  Berkelay  are  descended  from  this  Theobald. 

Humphrey  Berkelay,  whether  a  brother  of  the  Chamberlain  or  not,  left  only 

an  heiress,  Pdchenda,  who  married  Eobert,  son  of  Warnebald,  apparently  a 

Fleming,  and  thus  became  the  ancestress  of  the  family  of  Cunningham,  Earls 

of  Glencairu.     Eobert,  son  of  Warnebald,  died,  and   Eichenda  was  left  a 

widow  before  1189.^ 

It  is  evident  from  the  foregoing,  that  the  assertion  that  the  family  of 

'  Liberde  Calchou,p.  168  ;  cf.  p.  154,No.  189.        '  Registrum  Vetus  de  Aberbrothoc,  p.  206. 
*  Regiatrum  Vetus  de  Aberbrothoc,  p.  60.  *  Ibid.  pp.  198,  200  ;  "  Caledonia,"  vol.  i. 

3  "  Caledonia,"  vol.  i.  p.  529.  p.  536  ;  Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  i.  p.  2.32. 


Douglas  descended  from  Theobald  the  Fleming,  who  for  a  short  time  settled 
at  Folkaiton  near  their  territory,  is  no  more  to  be  relied  upon  than  the 
statements  made  by  Hume  of  Godscroft. 


Had  Godscroft's  narrative  been  founded  on  authentic  evidence,  there 
might  have  been  good  reason  for  adhering  to  his  view  of  the  origin  of  the 
Douglas  family,  in  so  far  as  it  points  to  the  probability  that  they  were 
natives  of  the  soil,  and  were  brought  suddenly  into  the  ken  of  history  by 
some  special  event  or  act  of  royal  favour.  A  recent  historian  writing 
upon  what  he  terms  the  Theory  of  Displacement,  a  theory  which  assigns 
every  Scottish  name  of  note  to  a  foreign  settler,  combats  this  view  witli 
considerable  force.^  The  evidence  he  adduces  in  favour  of  a  contrary 
opinion  cannot  be  ignored,  and  tends  to  show  that  notwithstanding  the 
undoubted  migration  into  Scotland,  at  various  dates,  of  Saxon,  Xorman, 
and  Flemish  settlers,  the  native  population  remained  to  a  large  extent 
undisturbed.  In  regard  to  the  Lords  of  Douglas  and  their  territory,  no 
document  of  the  nature  of  grant  or  charter  has  been  found  which  affects  the 
integrity  of  their  domain,  though  years  before  a  Douglas  is  found  on  record, 
the  lands  all  round  their  territory  were  in  possession  either  of  Crown  vassals 
or  great  abbeys.  Another  writer  also,  more  recent  than  the  last  cited  author, 
and  looking  on  the  subject  from  a  difierent  point  of  view,  gives  testimony 
which  corroborates  this  statement. 

David,  Prince  of  Cumbria,  afterwards  King  of  Scotland,  under  the  title  of 
David  the  First,  between  1116  and  1120,  made  inquisition  into  the  possessions 
of  the  Church  of  Glasgow  in  all  the  provinces  of  Cumbria  under  his  power. 
These  were  situated  in  that  portion  of  Cumbria  called  Strathclyde,  and,  as 
appears  from  the  document,  included  Lanark,  Ayr,  Ptcnfrew,  Dumfries,  and 

1   Robertson's  Scotland  iindex-  her  Early  Kings,  vol.  ii.  Appendix  R. 



Peebles.!  David  was  also  overlord  of  Galloway,  and  ruler  over  Lothian  and 
Teviotdale.  The  ancient  territory  of  Douglas  was  therefore  within  Cumbria. 
Speaking  of  the  inquest  referred  to,  and  other  charters  of  Prince  David,  Mr. 
Skene  says,  "The  native  Cumbrians  nowhere  appear  as  witnessing  his  (Prince 
David's)  grants,  and  it  seems  plain  enough  that  he  had  largely  introduced  the 
Norman  element  into  his  territories,  and  ruled  over  them  as  a  feudal  superior, 
basing  his  power  and  influence  upon  his  Xonnan  and  Anglic  vassals,  of  whom 
the  former  were  now  the  most  prominent,  both  in  weight  and  number."  2 

The  same  ^^Tite^  elsewhere  refers  to  a  movement  of  the  Anglic  population 
of  Northumbria,  etc.,  into  the  upper  valley  of  the  Tweed  and  Teviot,  and 
along  the  banks  of  the  great  watercourse  of  the  Clyde,  and  to  the  plains  of 
Kenfrew  and  Ayr.  He  then  adds,  "  Extensive  territories  too  were  granted  by 
Earl  David  (afterwards  King  David  the  First)  to  his  Norman  followers.  The 
great  district  of  Anuandale  was  given  to  De  Bruce.  The  adjacent  districts 
of  Eskdale  and  Ewisdale  were  filled  with  Normans.  The  De  Morevilles 
obtained  Cunniughame  or  the  northern  district  of  Ayrshire,  and  the  Norman 
Fitzallan,  who  became  the  Steward  of  Scotland,  acquired  Renfrew  and  part  of 
Kyle.  These  Norman  barons  settled  their  Northumbrian  followers  on  their 
lands,  and  thus  almost  the  whole  of  the  ancient  kingdom  of  the  Cumbrian 
Britons  became  soon  entirely  Saxonised."  ^ 

In  this  enumeration  of  grants  to  foreigners,  however,  the  districts  of 
Douglasdale  and  a  large  sweep  of  Clydesdale  are  omitted,  and  while  the 
Cartularies  of  the  great  abbeys  contirm  Mr.  Skene's  statement,  the  fact  that 
they  reveal  nothing  as  to  Douglasdale  indicates  a  probability  that  it  may 
have  remained  in  possession  of  its  native  lords.  Whether  these  descended 
from  Celtic  ancestors,  it  is  of  course  impossible  to  say.  In  the  inquest 
referred  to  as  made  by  Prince  David,  the  elders  and  wise  men  of  Cumbria 

^  Registrum  Episcopatus  Glasguensis,  vol.  i. 
pp.  3,  4. 

-  Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  457. 
•^  /6/V.  vol.  iii.  pp.  25,  2G. 


informed  him  that  the  Church  of  Glasgow  and  its  possessions  had  been 
destroyed  by  "  diverse  seditions  and  insurrections,"  which  had  also  laid 
waste  the  country,  and  driven  its  inhabitants  into  exile,  M-ho  had  been 
replaced  by  tribes  of  diflering  nationality  and  religion.^  From  this  it  has 
been  argued  that  the  British  inhabitants  had  to  a  great  extent  deserted  the 
countrv,  but  though  the  chronicles  record  numerous  invasions  of  Cumbria 
or  Strathclyde,-  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  no  descendants  of  the  Celts 
remained.  Whether  the  family  of  Douglas  M-ere  of  Celtic  parentage  or  not, 
they  raav  have  possessed  Douglasdale  in  the  time  of  King  David  the  First, 
undisturbed  by  the  influx  of  Saxon  and  Norman  strangers  whom  that  King 
delighted  to  honour. 

Sir  -Tames  Dalryniple,  in  his  Collections  concerning  the  Scottish  histor}', 
takes  this  view.  He  refers  to  the  fact  that  places  were  more  ancient  than 
the  surnames  derived  from  them,  and  instances  the  water  and  territory  of 
Douglas  as  named  in  charters  before  any  of  the  family  are  found  on  record. 
He  concludes  "  that  the  family  inhabiting  the  lands  of  Douglas  was  very 
ancient,  albeit  that  sirname  be  not  found  so  early  as  others  ;  and  that  this 
being  an  ancient  Scottish  family,  took  the  designation  from  their  lands  when 
sirnames  were  commonly  used."^  Sir  James  I)alryraple's  assertion  that  tin- 
Douglases  were  an  ancient  Scottish  family  may  be  based  partly  on  tradition, 
but  on  this  subject  of  surnames  a  later  writer  gives  similar  testimony.  ]\Ir. 
Robertson  in  his  "  Early  Kings  "  writes  thus  :  "  It  was  the  charter  and  feudal 

^  Registrum  Episcopatus  Glasgnensis,  vol.  i.  and  the  people  of  Teviotdale.     Fordun,  edition 

p.  4.  1871,  vol.  i.  p.  444  ;  vol.  ii.  p.  425. 

*  Celtic  Scotland,   vol.  iii.  p.  "24.     On  the 

other  hand,  at  the  battle  of  the  Standard  in  "   Dalrymple's  Collections,  preface,  pp.  Ixiii, 

1138,  the  second  line  of  King  David's  battle  Ixiv.      His  references    are   to  charters  dated 

array  was  composed  of   "  Cumbreuses  "'  and  about    IIGO   or  earlier,    and    before  1174. — 

"  Te^^dalenses,"  whom   Mr.  .Skene  describes  Liber  de  Melros,  vol.  i.  pp.  55,  58  ;  Liber  dt- 

as  "  the   Welsh  population    of    Strathclyde  "  Calchou,  vol.  i.  p.  78. 


tenure  which  gradually  converted  the  native  proprietoiy  of  Scotia  into  '  lairds 
of  tliat  ilk,'  henceforth  undistinguishable  among  the  general  feudal  baronage." 
After  a  reference  to  various  derivations  of  surnames,  the  writer  proceeds — 
"  From  the  frequent  occurrence  of  an  addition,  such  as  Flandrensis,  to  the 
name  of  the  first  recipient  of  a  charter,  it  may  be  assumed  that  in  its  absence, 
and  where  no  distinct  territorial  surname  is  attached,  the  recipient  was 
usually  of  native  extraction,  especially  if  in  a  well-a fleeted  district,  the 
fii-st  liolder  by  charter,  but  not  necessarily  the  first  of  the  race  in  Scotland." 
This  is  guarded  by  the  statement  that  every  territorial  surname  is  not  hastily 
to  be  assumed  as  denoting  the  presence  of  a  foreign  settler,  "  when  in  reality 
it  is  only  the  mark  of  tenure  by  charter."^ 

It  may  be  objected  in  regard  to  the  sudden  appearance  in  history  of 
the  first  recorded  member  of  the  family  of  Douglas,  that  if  the  Douglases 
were  of  ancient  or  of  native  lineage,  they  would  have  been  mentioned  at 
an  earlier  date  in  public  records.  But  from  the  point  of  view  here  taken, 
the  fact  that  William  of  Douglas,  tlie  first  on  record,  is  not  named  earlier 
than  between  1174  and  1199,  may  imply  not  that  he  was  a  new  settler, 
or  a  member  of  an  emigrant  family,  but  that  he  was  simply  the  first  of 
his  family  to  receive  a  charter  of  the  lands  which  his  ancestors  had  held. 
This,  of  course,  is  open  to  the  opposite  objection  that  he  was  the  first  of 
his  family  to  possess  the  lands  at  all,  and  the  question  of  origin  is  left 
entirely  untouched  ;  but  the  theory  that  the  family  of  Douglas  were  new 
settlers  in  Scotland,  as  Chalmers  and  others  assert,  must  be  modified 
by  the  possibility  Iiere  suggested,  that  "William  of  Douglas  took  his  sur- 
name from  his  ancestral  territory.  The  fact  also  that  Brice  Douglas,  son 
of  William,  was  Prior  of  Lesmahagow  before  he  became  Bishop  of  Moray  in 
1203,  argues  an  ancestry  of  some  importance  in  that  neighbourhood,  such 
as  could  scarcely  be  gained  by  a  new  family.     Even  if,  as  alleged,  Brice  was 

'  Robertson's  Scotland  undor  her  Early  Kings,  vol.  ii.  pp.  4S9,  490. 


"  iu  juveuilibus  aunis"  when  Prior,  this  would  seem  to  imply  very  consider- 
able influence  with  the  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  of  the  locality. 

A  similar  instance  of  a  sudden  appearance  in  history  of  the  head  of  a 
powerful  family,  which  for  a  time  was  more  notable  even  than  the  Douglases, 
is  furnished  by  the  case  of  the  ancient  Lords  of  Galloway.  On  this  point  the 
words  of  jMr.  Skene  are  worthy  of  attention.  He  states,  on  the  authority  of 
Fordun  and  other  historians,  that  after  the  death  of  King  David  the  First  iu 
1153,  the  succession  of  his  grandson  Malcolm  to  the  throne  was  viewed  with 
dislike  by  the  entire  Gaelic  population  of  the  country,  and  was  soon  followed 
by  the  open  revolt  of  the  great  Gaelic  districts  of  Moray,  Argyll,  and 
Galloway.  The  two  latter  districts  are  found  starting  into  life  under  the 
mle  of  two  native  princes — Somerled  of  Argyll,  and  Fergus,  Prince  of 
Galloway — while  no  hint  is  given  of  the  parentage  of  either.  The  writer's 
explanation  of  this  fact  is  that  the  Norwegians  had  long  held  both  districts, 
their  expulsion  by  the  native  population  had  only  recently  taken  place,  and 
that  "owing  to  the  long  possession  of  the  country  by  the  Norwegians,  all 
trace  of  the  parentage  of  the  native  leaders  under  whom  they  (the  men  of 
Argjdl  and  Galloway)  had  risen,  had  disappeared  from  the  annals  of  the 
country,  and  they  were  viewed  as  the  founders  of  a  new  race  of  native  lords."  ^ 

If,  therefore,  the  ancestry  of  the  princes  of  Argyll  and  (4  alio  way  could  be 
forgotten,  and  Somerled  and  Fergus  be  accepted  by  liistorians  as  new  men, 
much  more  easily  might  the  oi'igin  of  the  family  of  Douglas  be  lost  sight  of, 
and  the  first  of  the  name  who  appears  on  record  be  hailed  as  the  first  of  his 
race  in  Scotland,  whether  he  was  so  or  not. 

The  late  well-known  antiquarian  and  peerage  lawyer,  Mr.  Kiddell,  while 
combating  the  view  taken  by  Chalmers  of  the  Douglas  origin  by  descent 

I  Celtic  Scotland,  vol.  i.  pp.  4r>8.  460  ;  cf.  Fordun,  edition  1872,  vol.  ii.  pp.  430,  431. 
V()[..   I.  K 



from  Theobald  the  Fleming,  and  expressing  his  belief  that  from  its  antiquity 
and  other  circumstances,  no  further  light  would  be  thrown  upon  the  subject, 
especially  in  Scotland,  remarks  that  the  Douglases  were  also  a  Northumbrian 
family,  and  that  this  foct  has  been  somewhat  overlooked.^  But  beyond  the 
fact  that  for  several  generations  the  family  of  Douglas  possessed  the  manor  of 
Fawdon  and  other  lands  in  Northumberland,  the  circumstances  connected 
with  which  will  be  considered  in  the  :\remoirs,  and  that  other  persons 
denominated  "de  Duglas,"  servants  of  the  head  of  the  house,  are  found  in 
that  district,  the  suggestion  affords  no  assistance  whatever  to  the  elucidation 
of  the  question  of  origin. 

The  whole  evidence,  so  far  as  has  been  discovered,  on  one  side  or  other, 
bearing  on  the  origin  of  the  Douglases  and  the  various  theories  regarding 
that  origin,  has  now  been  collected  and  compared.  It  must  be  admitted 
that  the  matter  stands  now  very  much  as  it  did  in  the  days  of  Wyntowu,  and 
"syndry  men"  will  still  speak  "syndryly."  William  of  Douglas  may  have 
been  of  native  lineage;  his  ancestors  may  have  possessed  Douglasdale,  and 
he  may  have  been  the  first  to  take  his  name  from  that  territory,  Is  holding  it 
by  a  new  charter.  He  may  have  been  a  native  Moravian,  and  for  his  loyc^lty 
have  received  as  a  reward  the  Valley  of  Douglas,  when  the  country  became 
more  settled  after  the  defeat  of  Donald  Bane  and  other  insurgents.^ 

It  is  not  proved  that  William  of  Douglas  was  a  Fleming,  though  the  only 
authentic  evidence  regarding  his  personal  history  tends  to  connect  him,  by 

1  Remarks  upon  Scotch  Peerage  Law,  18.33, 
1..  175. 

-  In  coiinectioa  with  this,  it  is  impossible 
not  to  echo  Mr.  Robertson's  regret  as  to  the 
loss  of  "  the  RolL  in  twelve  parts,  of  recogni- 
tions and  old  charters  in  the  time  of  William 

and  his  son  Alexander,  and  of  those  to  whom 
the  said  kings  formerly  gave  their  peace,  and 

of   those   who   stood   with   MacWilliam." 

[Scotland  under  her  Early  Kings,  vol.  i.  p. 
.30.3,  note ;  Acts  of  the  Parliaments  of  Scot- 
land, vol.  i.  p.  114] 


tlie  ties  either  of  marriage  or  of  blood,  with  a  family  of  reputed  llemish 
origin,  unless  Freskin  of  Kerdal  be  held  to  be  a  native  of  Moray.  That 
Freskin  of  Kerdal  and  William  of  Douglas  were  brothers  cannot  be  decided  on 
the  evidence  now  extant.  If,  on  the  other  alternative,  they  were  brothers-in- 
law,  their  alliance  may  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that  they  were  l.ioth  natives  of 
Moray.  Or,  assuming  that  Freskin  was  of  the  Moravia  family  and  William 
a  southern,  tlieir  connection  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that,  until  1198, 
the  Douglases  held  the  lands  of  Hailes  in  Midlothian,  and  were  thus  neigh- 
bours of  the  Freskins  in  Strabrock  in  West  Lothian.  It  is  not  known 
whether  the  Freskins  all  resided  in  Morayshire,  though  they  held  lands 
there.  William,  the  second  son  of  Freskin,  is  the  only  one  of  his  family 
who  is  named  as  living  in  Moray  before  1194. 

William  of  Douglas  was  evidently  in  possession  of  the  territory  from 
which  he  derived  his  surname  previous  to  the  year  1109,  or  some  time 
between  that  and  1 1 74.  If  he  was  a  native  of  Moray,  he  probably  transferred 
his  residence  to  the  south,  as  he  is  never  recorded  as  being  in  Moray,  and 
none  of  his  family  are  named  as  being  there  before  the  time  of  Bishop  Brice. 
The  possession  of  Hailes  by  Archibald  Douglas,  the  eldest  son  of  William, 
before  1198,  and  the  ecclesiastical  rank  held  by  his  brother  Brice  of  Prior  of 
Lesmahagow,  so  near  to  Douglasdale,  certainly  suggest  a  continued  residence 
in  the  south,  if  not  an  ancestral  establishment  there.  On  the  other  hand, 
tradition  associates  the  first  Douglas  with  the  rising  of  Donald  Bane,  a 
historical  event  proved  to  have  taken  place  in  jSIorayshire.  William  of 
Douglas  lived  contemporaneously  with  that  event,  was  related  to  a  Moray- 
shire baron,  and  may  have  resided  in  the  south  only  after  a  possible  grant 
of  the  lands  of  Douglas.  His  domicile  of  origin,  therefore,  cannot  be 
definitely  fixed. 

It  only  remains  to  sum  up  what  appears  to  be  actually  proved  as  to  the 
first  member  of  the  Douglas  family,  though  the  question  of  origin,  it  is  U^  be 



feared,  must  remain  in  obscurity.  The  evidence  adduced  is  to  the  effect  tliat 
William  of  Douglas,  father  of  Archibald  and  Brice  of  Douglas  and  their 
brothers,  was  a  near  relation  of  Freskin  of  Kerdal,  a  laird  in  ]\Ioray ;  that  the 
cognisance  of  the  Douglases,  three  stars  in  chief,  was  similar  to  that  borne 
by  a  descendant  of  Freskin  of  Kerdal ;  that  the  Douglases  and  the  Freskins 
(afterwards  the  family  of  Moray)  were  at  an  early  period  neighbouring 
proprietors  in  the  south  of  Scotland,  and  that  the  two  families  were  also  in 
Morayshire  together ;  and,  further,  that  the  traditional  ancestor  of  the  family 
of  Douglas  is  asserted  to  have  fought  against  Donald  Bane,  while  the  first 
historical  Douglas  was  actually  contemporary  with  the  rebel  of  that  name, 
who  was  slain  in  Morayshire. 

With  these  preliminary  remarks  on  the  much  discussed  subject  of  the 
origin  of  the  Douglas  family,  we  now  proceed  with  the  detailed  Memoirs  of 
the  successive  Barons  of  Douglas. 



CircM  \\1\ — circa  1214. 

"IT^'ILLIAM  OF  DOUGLAS,  who  flourished  in  the  reign  of  King  William 
'*  tlie  Lion  (1165-1214),  is  the  first  owner  of  Douglas  or  Douglasclale, 
in  the  parish  of  Douglas  and  county  of  Lanark,  known  to  authentic  history. 
Ife  is  likewise  the  earliest  known  ancestor  of  the  illustrious  race  of  Douglas. 
His  parentage  remains  hidden  in  obscurity,  the  single  clue  which  promises 
any  unfolding  of  the  mystery  being  contained  in  a  charter  by  one  of  his 
younger  sons,  Brice  of  Douglas,  Bishop  of  Moray,  in  which  he  refers  to  Freskin 
of  Kerdal  as  his  uncle.^  The  term  used  by  Bishop  Brice  is  "  avunculus," 
which  favours  the  view  that  the  relationship  vv^as  only  created  by  inter- 
marriage of  the  two  families,  but  affords  no  conclusive  evidence,  as 
"  avunculus "  is  frequently  used  in  charters  of  ancient  date  to  denote  a 
father's  brother,  as  well  as  the  more  definite  term  "  patruus." 

Nor  does  the  designation  "  of  Douglas  "  afford  any  assistance  in  eluci- 
dating this  question,  for  William  himself  is  the  earliest  known  possessor  of 
the  lands  of  Douglas,  and  he  may  either  have  inherited  the  lands  from  his 
father,  or  acquired  them  in  his  own  person  by  grant  from  King  William  the 
Lion.  The  latter,  indeed,  is  quite  probable,  for,  as  has  already  been  shown, 
the  early  tradition  of  the  sudden  rise  of  the  Douglas  family  into  political 

*  Registnun  Moraviense,  p.  61.  It  is  note-  a  similar  single  allusion  to  him  in  a  charter 
worthy  that  Freskin,  the  ancestor  of  the  granted  to  his  son  "William. — [Nisbet's  Her- 
i-'reat  family  of  De  Moravia,  is  onlyknowTi  by       aldry,  ed.  1804,  vol.  ii.  App.  p.  IS.S.] 



importance  tinds  its  only  consistent  fultilmeut  in  the  subject  of  this  nienioii-. 
William  of  Douglas  may  have  taken  a  prominent  part  in  quelling  the 
insurrection  of  Macwilliam  or  Donald  Bane,  which  took  place  in  his  time, 
and  been  rewarded  for  liis  services  with  a  grant  of  the  lands  of  Douglasdalc. 
These  lands,  it  is  true,  are  not,  prior  to  this  date,  mentioned  as  in  the 
occupancy  either  of  the  Crown  or  of  any  of  the  great  monasteries  who  owned 
large  portions  of  adjoining  baronies,  but  the  want  of  evidence  does  not 
exclude  the  possibility  of  tlieir  l)eing  at  the  disposal  of  the  Crown,  and  of 
their  bestowal  at  this  time  upon  William  of  Douglas.  Indeed,  this  view  is 
in  no  small  degree  favoured  by  the  fact  that  it  is  only  after  the  date  of  the 
insurrection  of  Donald  Bane  that  Douglas  appears  at  Court,  and  in  posses- 
sion of  the  Douglas  lands.  Of  the  early  charters  of  the  Douglas  family 
which  were  in  existence  in  1288,^  no  trace  can  now  be  found,  the  probability 
being  that  they  were  destroyed  during  the  wars  of  succession.  No  monastic 
record  contains  any  grant  of  the  Douglas  lands. 

It  is  certain  that  the  lands  of  Douglas  were  in  the  possession  of  William 
of  Douglas  before  the  year  1198,  as  he  is  mentioned  under  the  designation 
"  Will  de  Dufglas,"  as  one  of  the  witnesses  to  a  charter  by  Joceline,  Bishop 
of  Glasgow,  granted  between  1174  and  1199.-  Godscroft  puts  forward  the 
theory  that  it  was  the  earliest  known  ancestor  of  the  Douglas  family — his 
fabulous  Sholto — who  gave  name  to  the  lands  of  Douglas,  but  this  theory  can 
no  longer  be  entertained.  Considerably  before  the  appearance  of  the  first 
ancestor  of  the  Douglas  family  on  authentic  record,  there  is  mention  in 
charters  granted  prior  to  the  year  1160  of  a  water  "  de  Duglax,"  as  well  as 
of  a  "  territorium  de  Duglas,"  adjacent  thereto,  in  the  county  of  Lanark,^  and 
to  such  a  district  reference  is  made  by  Walter  Fitz  Alan,  High  Steward  to 
King  William  the  Lion,  before  1177,  as  one  of  the  boundaries  of  his  forest 
of  Mauchline,  the  pasture  of  which  he  granted  to  the  monastery  of  Melrose/ 

1  Liber  de  Calchon,  p.  16S.      -  n.hl  p.  ;}46.      ^  IhUI.  pp.  7S,S-2.S4.     ••  Liber  de  Melros.  vol.  i.jL.l^. 


There  is  thus  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  designation  "  of  Douglas,"  in 
accordance  with  general  custom  and  as  the  particle  "  de  "  itself  denotes,  was 
derived  from  the  lands  in  Lanarkshire  which  bear  that  name,  and  wliich,  as 
shown  in  another  part  of  this  work,  were  the  first  known  possessions  of 
the  family. 

From  an  agreement  respecting  the  lauds  of  Hailes  made  by  Archibald, 
the  eldest  son  of  William  of  Douglas,  before  the  year  1 198,^  when  the  former, 
it  may  be  presumed,  was  of  mature  age,  the  inference  may  be  drawn  that 
William  of  Douglas  was  born  towards  the  close  of  the  reign  of  King  David 
the  First,  who  died  in  1153.  Godscroft  relates,  and  it  is  the  only  thing  he 
has  to  place  on  record  concerning  the  subject  of  this  memoir,  that  under  the 
designation  "  Gulielmus  de  Douglas,"  he  witnessed  a  charter  granted  by  King 
David  the  F'irst  to  the  town  of  Ayr  in  the  year  1151.  But  this  alleged  grant 
by  King  David  the  First  is  unknown  to  any  other  historian,  and  King 
William  the  Lion  was  the  first  Scottish  sovereign  who  conferred  grants  upon 
Ayr,  and  raised  it  to  the  rank  of  a  royal  burgh.  Godscroft  does  not  say 
he  saw  the  charter,  and  he  may  possibly  have  confused  the  reign  of  King 
David  the  First  with  that  of  King  David  the  Second.  The  latter  sovereign 
certainly  gi-anted  charters  to  the  burgh  of  Ayr,  and  to  at  least  one  of  these 
William  of  Douglas,  the  first  Earl  of  Douglas,  was  a  witness.'^ 

Between  1187,  when  Donald  Bane's  rebellion  was  suppressed,  and  the 
year  1214,  William  of  Douglas  appears  frequently  on  the  page  of  authentic 
record  as  a  witness  to  charters,  etc.  On  more  than  one  occasion  he  is  found 
attending  at  the  Court  of  King  William  the  Lion.  About  the  year  1200  he 
attested  the  confirmation  by  that  monarch  of  a  gift  of  land  and  pasturage  in 
Dalgarnoc  to  the  Canons  of   the  Church  of   Holyrood,  at  Edinburgh,^  and 

1  Registrum  de  Dunfermelyn,  p.  190. 

-  Wigton  and  Ayr  Collections,  Charters  of  the  Royal  Burgh  of  Ayr,  p.  9. 

"^  Liber  Cartannii  Sancte  Crucis,  p.  44. 


again  in  1213  at  the  same  place,  he  attested  an  agreement  which  terminated 
a  dispute  between  two  brothers  for  the  possession  of  the  earldom  of 
Menteith.i  On  tliis  occasion  the  controversy  came  before  the  king  himself 
for  decision,  and  among  the  witnesses  witli  William  of  Douglas  was  Prince 
Alexander,  afterwards  King  Alexander  the  Second,  as  well  as  many  of  the 
principal  nobles  and  barons  of  the  kingdom. 

On  two  occasions  William  of  Douglas  witnessed  charters  by  his  neighbour 
Thomas,  son  of  Tancard.  The  first  of  these,  to  the  granter's  sister,  Beatrice, 
gave  to  her,  on  her  marriage  to  John  Logan,  a  carucate  or  ploughgate  of  land.'' 
By  the  other  writ  the  granter  conveyed  to  the  monastery  of  Arbroath  all  the 
land  between  Etlikar  and  Kaledouer,  which  King  lAIalcolm  had  given  to  his 
father  Tancard.^  The  other  witnesses  to  these  charters  were  distinguished 
courtiers,  such  as  William  de  Bosco,  who  afterwards  became  Chancdlor  of 
Scotland,  Hugh  de  Prebenda,  John  de  Oraham,  ^lichael  de  Wemyss,  and 
others.  This  points  to  the  fact  that  even  in  the  time  of  their  first  known 
ancestor  the  family  of  Douglas  attained  a  prominent  position  as  the  owners 
of  an  extensive  territory,  and  probably  also  as  eminent  in  arms. 

William  of  Douglas  had  six  sons,  and  also,  it  is  said,  one  daughter. 

1.  Archibald  of   Douglas,  who  succeeded  his  father  in  the  Douglas 

estates,  and  of  whom  a  memoir  follows. 

2.  Brice  of  Douglas,  who  became  Bishop  of  Moray.     Of  him  also  a  short 

memoir  is  given,  after  tlie  memoir  of  his  elder  brother  Archibald. 

3.  Alexander   of  Douglas,  who  appears  first  as  a  Canon  of  Spynie. 

often   in   company   with   his   brother   Henry,   as   a   witness   to 
charters  by  his  brother,  Brice,  Bishop  of  Moray."     In  a  grant  by 

'  The  Red  Book  of  Menteith,  by  William  3  Reg^strum  Vetus  de  Aberhrothoc,  p    bU 

Fraaer,  vol.  ..  p.  7  ;  vol.  ii.  pp.  214,  215.  .  Registrun.  Moraviense,  pp.  Gl,  62,  25l' 

-  xNisbets  Heraldn-,   vol.  ii.  Appendix,  p.        Registrum    Vetus  de  Aberbrotboc    pp     I42' 



Bishop  Brice  to  Hugh  of  Moray,  Lord  of  Duffus,  three  of  the 
brothers  are  among-  the  witnesses,  "  Archibaldo  de  DousLis, 
Alexandro  et  Henrico,  Canonicis  de  Spyny,  fratribus  nostris."  ^ 
Alexander  is  also  mentioned  as  a  Canon  of  Spynie  in  the  charter 
of  William,  son  of  Wilham  Freskin,  to  the  Cliurcli  of  tlie  Holy 
Trinity  of  Spynie  and  College  of  Canons  there,  granting  them  the 
Church  of  Artendol  or  ArndiUy,  in  whicli  all  the  six  brothers 
appear  as  witnesses."  He  witnessed  the  charter  granted  to  the 
Monks  of  Kelso  by  the  Princess  Margaret,  after  her  marriage 
with  Sir  Eustace  de  Vescy,  and  is  there  designated  brother  of 
Brice,  Bishop  of  Moray.  ^ 

Between  the  years  1225  and   1232,  the  name  of  Alexander 
Douglas   frequently   appears   in    charters  with    the   designation 
"Sheriff  of  Elgin."*     The  editor  of  the  Cartulary  of  Mor^y,  in  a 
footnote  to  his  preface  to  that  work,  refers  to  the  fact  as  an  instance 
of  several  ambiguities  which  presented  themselves  in  the  original 
Eegister.     The  word  rendered  Sheriff  in  one  case  is  given  almost 
in  full  (vicecomit),  in  two  others,  somewhat  more  abbreviated 
(vicec),  but  still  plainly  indicating  "  Vicecomes,"  while  in  no  less 
than  ten  it  is  represented  merely  by  "  vie."     This  last,  the  editor 
points  out,  may  either  mean   vicccomes  or  vicarius,  and   in  one 
instance  he  has  rendered  it  "  Alexandro,  vicario  de  Elgyfi."  ^ 

But  that  Alexander  of  Douglas  was  connected  with  the 
church  appears  evident  from  an  agreement  made  in  1237 
between  Andrew,  Bishop  of  Moray,  and  the  Hospital,  called  the 
House  of  God  (Domus  Dei,  and  more  recently  Maison  Dieu)  at 

*  Registrum  Moraviense,  p.  274. 
'  ri^d.  p.  17. 

^  Liber  de  Calchou,  p.  174. 
VOL.  I. 

*  Registrum    Moravitnse,    pp.   21,  23,  2"), 
2G,  30,  G9,  111,  112,  132. 

■'  Ihhl.  p.  7S. 



Elgin,  of  which  Alexander  seems  to  have  been  superior.^      The 
document,  narrates  that  a  dispute  had  arisen  between  the  Bishop 
and  the  brethren  and  sisters  in  the  hospital,  respecting  certain 
lands  to  which  both  parties  laid  claim,  and  that  the  controversy 
was  settled  by  an  exchange  of  lands,  the  Hospital  receiving  the 
disputed  lands  of  Munben  (Mull)en),  and  the  Bishop  of  Moray 
getting  the  land  of  Kelleys,   which  had   been  given  by  King 
Alexander  the  Second  to  Alexander  of  Douglas  and  the  Hospital 
i.  Henry  of  Douglas,  who,  like  his  brother  Alexander,  was  a  Canon  of 
Sppiie,  and  as  such  witnessed  charters  by  his  brother  the  Bishop.- 
Both  Henry  and  Hugh  were  clerks  to  their  brother  Brice  during 
his  episcopate,^  and  Henry  of  Douglas  was  clerk  to  Brice's  suc^ 
cessor,  Andrew,  Bishop  of  Moray,  so  late  as  123!).^     Henry  seems 
to  have  been  frequently  in  company  with  his  brother  Alexander 
who,  when  merely  designed  "  Alexandro,  vicecomite  de  Elgin,"  is 
certified  to  be  a  Douglas  by  the  name  of  the  following  witness, 
"  Henrico  de  Douglas,  fratre  ejus."^ 

5.  Hugh  of  Douglas,  who,  like  his  two  brothers,  Alexander  and  Henry, 

wa^  also  a  Canon  of  the  College  of  Spynie.  After  the  death  of 
Brice  he  seems  to  have  been  appointed  Archdeacon  of  Moray, 
and  as  such  subscribed  and  witnessed  several  deeds  by  Bishop 
Andrew.6  He  died,  or  was  promoted,  before  1238,  as  the  Arch- 
deaconate  was  then  in  the  person  of  another/ 

6.  Freskin  of  Douglas,  who  may  have  received  his  peculiar  Christian 

name   in   honour  of  his    uncle    Freskin    of   Kerdal.      He   first 

'  Registrum  Moraviense,  p.  33.  *  Registrum  Moraviense,  p.  36 

2  Ib^d.  pp.  17,  274.  5  ff^i^i  pp  23,  25,  69,  132. 

3  Registnim  Vetus  de  Aberbrothoc,  pp.  52,  «  Ibid.  pp.  69,  71    75    77    78 

130,  133.  7   AV/         ,n-        ' 

'  Ibid.  p.  lOo. 


appears,  under  the  designation  of  "Fretheskin  persona  de  Dufgles," 
as  one  of  the  witnesses  to  a  charter  by  Bishop  Brice,  granting  the 
church  and  parsonage  of  Birnie  to  the  monks  of  Kelso,  two 
otlier  witnesses  being  Alexander  and  Henry,  his  brothers.^  From 
being  parson  of  Douglas,  he  appears  to  have  been  promoted  by 
his  brother,  tlie  Bishop  of  ^Nloray,  to  be  Dean  of  that  See ;  and 
he  also  held  that  office  under  his  brother's  successor,  Bishop 
Andrew.-  He  co-operated  with  his  brother  in  the  changes  the 
latter  instituted  in  his  See,  and,  along  with  the  Chancellor,  paid 
a  visit  to  Lincoln  to  ascertain  in  person  from  the  Dean  and 
Chapter  there  the  customs  of  that  place  for  guidance  in  their  own 
diocese.^  Dean  Freskin  of  Douglas  appears  to  have  died  before 
the  month  of  September  1232.^ 
Margaret,  who  is  said  to  have  married  Hervey  Keith,  ancestor  of  the 
Keiths  Marischals  of  Scotland.^ 

1  Liber  de  Calchou,  voL  ii.  p.  297.  *  Registrum  Moraviense,  p.  89. 

2  Registram  Moraviense,  pp.  17,  GG,  G7,  70,  ^  Nisbet's  Heraldry,  edition   1S04,  vol.  ii. 
71,  73,  76,  77.                          ^  /?'"^-  P-  4*-            Appendix,  p.  X 


Circa  1213— em-a  12-40. 

rpHE  affiliation  of  Archibald  of  Douglas,  the  second  known  owner  of 
-*-  Douglas,  to  William  of  Douglas,  is  well  authenticated  by  charter 
evidence.  On  several  occasions  he  attested  charters  in  company  with  his 
father,  such  as  the  gift  by  Thomas,  son  of  Tancard,  to  his  sister,  and  the 
agreement  made  at  the  Court  of  King  William  the  Lion  in  1213  between 
the  two  rival  Earls  of  Menteith. 

During  his  father's  lifetime  Archibald  of  Douglas  appears  for  some  time 
to  have  possessed  the  lands  of  Hailes  in  the  county  of  Midlothian.  They 
were  held  from  the  Abbot  and  jMonastery  of  Dunfermline,  but  prior  to  1198, 
with  consent  of  his  friends,  Archibald  of  Douglas  resigned  the  lands,  along 
with  their  writs,  into  the  hands  of  the  Abbot  in  return  for  a  sum  of  money 
received  from  Thomas,  son  of  Edward  of  Lestalric  (Eestalrig),  to  whom  the 
lands  were  afterwards  assigned.  In  this  charter  Archibald  of  Dousjlas  is 
designated  son  of  W.  de  Duglas.^ 

Between  the  years  1214  and  122G,  and  under  the  same  designation, 
Archibald  of  Douglas  received  a  grant  from  Malcolm,  Earl  of  Fife,  of  his 
whole  land  of  Livingston,  and  his  whole  land  of  Herdmanston.  These 
lands,  situated  respectively  in  East  and  West  Lothian,  and  formerly  possessed 
by  William  of  Kilmaron,  were  to  be  held  by  Archibald  of  Douglas,  and  his 
heirs,  of  the  Earls  of  Fife,  in  fee  and  heritage,  as  freely  as  any  knight  in  the 
whole  realm  of  Scotland  held  his  fee  of  Earl  or  Baron,  for  half  a  knight's 

^  Registnim  de  Dunfermelyn,  p.  190. 



verviee.  Freskin  of  Douglas,  Dean  of  Moray,  brother  of  Archibald  of 
Douglas,  was  a  wituess  to  this  charter,  which  was  subsequently  confirmed  by 
King  Alexander  the  Second  at  Stirling.^ 

Shortly  after  the  above  gi-ant  Archibald  of  Douglas  had  received  the 
dignity  of  knighthood.  Under  the  designation  "  Domino  Archebaldo  de 
Dufglas,"  he  was  witness  to  a  charter  by  William  Purves  of  ]Mospenuoc, 
granting  to  the  monks  of  ]\Ielrose,  for  the  sum  of  twenty  shillings  sterling, 
the  right  to  pass  through  his  lands  of  jMospennoc.  Another  witness  to 
this  charter  was  Andrew,  knight,  or  man-at-arms  of  Archibald  of  Douglas,- 
and  the  fact  of  his  being  attended  by  his  own  knight  shows  the  infiuential 
position  which  he  had  acquired. 

Other  charters  attested  by  Sir  Archibald  of  Douglas  were  a  confirmation 
by  Joceline,  Bishop  of  Glasgow,  of  a  grant  by  Pianulf  de  Hadintun  to  the 
monastery  of  Melrose  f  and  several  charters  by  his  brother  Brice,  Bishop  of 
^loray.*  From  his  presence  in  Morayshire  at  different  periods  it  is  not 
improbable  that  he  may  have  frequently  resided  there  with  his  brother. 
Even  after  the  death  of  the  latter,  he  is  found  in  that  district  attesting  an 
agreement  hy  the  succeeding  Bishop  of  Moray,  in  which  a  note  of  his 
relationship  to  Bishop  Brice  is  preserved  in  the  designation,  "  frater  quondam 
Bricii  Episcopi."^  In  July  1238,  at  Selkirk,  he  was  present  when  King 
Alexander  the  Second  granted  the  earldom  of  Lennox  to  INIaldouen,  son  of 
Alwyn,  Earl  of  Lennox.*^  Later,  he  witnessed  a  charter  by  Amelec,  the 
brother  of  Earl  Maldouen  \~'  while  probably  in  the  year  following,  under  the 
designation  "  Henkelbaldo  de  Duglas,"  he  attested  the  grant  of  lands  in 
Crawford,  made  by  David  de  Lindsay  to  the  monks  of  Newbattle  Abbey.^ 

'  Registrum   Honoris   de  Morton,    vol.    i.  ^  Registrum  Moraviense,  p]>.  17,  274. 

l>p.  xxxiii,  xxxiv.  ^  Ihid.  p.  81. 

.,  •  ;:•     •       ®  Cartiilarium  Comitatus  de  Leuenax,  p.  1. 

-  Liber  de  Melros,  vol.  i.  p.  214.  ,  ^     •  ,r  •■   , 

'  Registrum  Monasteni  de  Passelet,  p.  2U1). 

^  Ibid.  p.  37.  '*  Registrum  de  Neubotle,  p.  105. 


Sir  Archibald  of  Douglas  is  said  to  have  married  Margaret,  elder  daugliter 
of  Sir  John  Crawford  of  Crawford-John.^     He  had  tw^o  sons. 

1,  Sir  "William,  who  succeeded  his  father  in  the  Douglas  estates. 

2,  Sir  Andrew  of  Douglas,    from  whom   the  family   of  Douglas  of 

Dalkeith,  afterwards  Earls  of  IMorton,  claim  to  be  descended. 
He  appears  to  have  obtained  the  lauds  of  Herdmanston  from  his 
father,  and  afterwards  to  have  bestowed  them  on  his  own  son 
"William."  Sir  Andrew  of  Douglas  witnessed  several  charters  in 
company  w^ith  his  brother  Sir  William,^  and  in  1259  he  was 
present  at  Edinburgh  Castle  at  the  completion  of  the  marriage 
contract  between  his  nephew,  Hugh  of  Douglas,  and  INIarjory  of 

^  Upper  Wanl  of  Lanarkshire,  vol.  ii.  IX  60.       Eraser,  vol.  ii.  pp.  209,211;   Eegistriun  de 

2  Registrum  Honoris  de  Morton,  vol.  ii.  p.  S.        Dunfermelyu,  p.  97. 

3  The  Red  BoLik  of  Menteith,  by  William  ^  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  p.  2. 




rnO  the  house  of  Douglas  the  distinction  may  be  said  to  be  peculiar,  that  no 


sooner  does  it  appear  in  history  than  it  is  found  boldly  stretching  forth 
towards  the  attainment  of  high  eminence  alike  in  Church  and  State.  Brice 
of  Douglas,  a  younger  son  of  William  of  Douglas,  the  tirst  known  possessor 
of  the  Vale  of  Douglas,  was  exalted  to  the  dignity  of  Bishop  of  Moray,  and 
afterwards  to  the  honour  of  canonisation. 

Bricius  or  Brice  of  Douglas  has  his  parentage  authenticated  by  a  charter 
attested  by  Archibald,  the  eldest  son  of  William  of  Douglas,  as  Archibald 
is  therein  called  the  brother  of  Bishop  Brice.^  At  first  he  appears  as 
Prior  of  the  Convent  of  Lesmahagow,  a  cell  of  the  great  Monastery  of  Kelso. 
The  barony  of  Lesmahagow  was  one  of  the  gifts  bestowed  by  King  David 
the  First  upon  his  own  foundation  of  Kelso,  and  he  signalised  this  grant  by 
bestowing  upon  the  cell  the  privilege  of  sanctuary  for  any  who  in  peril  of 
life  or  limb  sought  its  shelter,  or  came  within  the  four  crosses  which  enclosed 
it.  To  such  the  king  granted  his  firm  peace."  So  important  a  dependency 
of  Kelso  was  Lesmahagow  in  the  earlier  days  of  its  history,  that  its 
Priors  sometimes  became  Abbots  of  Kelso.^  The  exact  date  at  which  Brice 
of  Douglas  became  Prior  of  Lesmahagow  has  not  been  ascertained,  but  it 
maybe  assumed  he  retained  the  dignity  until  the  year  1203,  when  he  was 
elevated  to  the  See  of  Moray.     That  bishopric  had  just  become  vacant  by  the 

'   Registnim  Moravieuse,  p.  81.  -  Liber  tie  Calchou,  vol.  i.  p.  0.  ^  Ihkl.  p.  ix. 



death  of  IJichard,  clerk  or  chaplain  to  King  William  the  Lion.  During  tlie 
episcopate  of  Bishop  Tachard  several  charters  are  attested  by  one  called 
Brice,  Dean  of  :\Ioray,  suggesting  that  Brice  of  Douglas  held  that  office 
between  the  date  of  his  being  Prior  of  Lesmahagow  and  Bishop  of  :\Iora\-. 
or  that  he  held  both  at  one  and  the  same  time.  But  this  is  scarcelv 
probable.  The  historians  who  record  the  death  of  Bishop  Bichard  and  the 
succession  of  Brice  of  Douglas,  do  so  in  such  a  manner  as  to  convey  the 
impression  that  he  M-as  only  Prior  of  Lesmahagow  at  the  time  of  his  election 
to  the  See  of  Moray.^ 

The  diocese  of  Moray  extended  at  this  time  as  far  eastward  as  Ehynie,  and 
to  the  west  as  far  as  Abertarf,  embracing  not  only  the  counties  of  Elgin  and 
Forres,  or  Moray  proper,  but  also  Nairn,  and  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
counties  of  Inverness,  Banff,  and  Aberdeen.-  To  what  cause  Brice  of  Douglas 
owed  his  elevation  to  the  ecclesiastical  oversight  of  this  great  district  it  is  not 
easy  to  say.  His  father's  military  services,  or  his  kinship  to  the  leading 
family  of  ^Nloray,  or  his  own  talents,  may  have  assisted  in  obtaining  for  him 
this  distinction.  He  is  said  to  have  embraced  the  monastic  life  from  tender 
years,  and  so  remarkably  acquired  a  knowledge  of  divine  literature  that  he 
was  deemed  fit,  while  still  a  youth,  to  occupy  the  position  of  Prior  in  the 
famed  Convent  (Coenobii)  of  Lesmahagow.  He  was  also  author  of  a  work 
upon  "  The  Sentences."  •* 

The  charter  of  King  William  the  Lion  presenting  Brice  of  Douglas  to  the 
See  of  Moray,  is  dated  at  Arbroath,  2-tth  August,  probably  in  the  year  1203. 
In  that  document  the  king  granted  to  Bishop  Brice  and  his  successors  in  the 
episcopate,  the  churches  of  Elgin  and  Eren  (Auldearn,  in  Moray),  with  all  their 

1  "Anno  .    .    .    obiit    Eicardus,  '-^  Shaw's  History  of  Moray,  Gordons  edi- 

episcopus  de  Moravia,  ciii  successit  dompniis  tion,  vol.  iii.  p.  275. 
Bricius,  prior  de  Lesmahagu." — [Chronica  de 

Mailros,   p.    105;  Fordun,  u  Goodall,  vol.   i.  ^  Dempster's  Historia  Ecclesiastica   (I'.an- 

P-  518.]  natyne  Club),  vol.  i.  p.  102. 



dependent  chapels  and  lands,  reserving  only  in  the  former  the  tenure  of  one 
of  his  own  chaplains.^ 

Soon  after  his  promotion  to  the  See,  Bishop  Brice  took  steps  to  obtain  a 
permanent  site  for  the  episcopal  seat.  Previous  to  his  time  each  Bishop  had, 
according  to  his  own  pleasure,  chosen  one  of  the  three  churches  of  Birnie, 
Spynie,  or  Kenedor  (Kingedward) ;  but  wishing  to  localise  his  residence,  and 
probably  with  the  intention  of  erecting  a  cathedral  church,  Bishop  Brice 
fixed  upon  Spynie,  as  it  appeared  to  him  the  most  convenient  site,  and 
petitioned  the  Papal  See  to  erect  that  church  into  a  cathedral.  Before  granting 
this  prayer,  Pope  Innocent  Third  remitted  the  matter  to  the  bishops  of  St. 
Andrews  and  Brechin,  who,  with  the  Abbot  of  Lindores,  were  commissioned, 
if  they  saw  fit,  to  grant  the  necessary  permission.^  Bishop  Brice's  desire 
was  ultimately  accorded :  Spynie  became  the  Cathedral  Church,  and  in  con- 
nection with  its  erection,  a  college  of  eight  Canons  was  founded,  on  the  plan 
of  the  cathedral  and  collerje  attached  to  the  diocese  of  Lincoln  in  England. 
At  the  making  of  his  charter  of  foundation,  the  Bishop  assembled  many 
churchmen  from  various  parts  of  the  country,  not  a  few  of  whom  subscribed 
their  names  to  the  deed.  Among  the  latter  were  Ealph,  Abbot  of  Kinloss, 
Richard,  Prior  of  Urquhart,  Gilbert,  Abbot  of  Arbroath,  and  Piichard,  Abbot 
of  Kelso,  the  two  last  named  being  attended  by  the  common  councils  of 
their  Convents.^  This  foundation  was  ratified  by  Pope  Innocent  Third 
about  the  year  1214.^ 

Spynie,  however,  did  not  respontl  to  the  Bishop's  expectations,  and  he 
cast  about  for  another  site.  This  was  found  at  Elgin,  where,  in  the  time  of 
his  successor,  the  cathedral  was  built,  which  continued  to  be  the  Episcopal  seat 
until  the  Reformation,  and  where  its  ruins  still  form  a  prominent  object  of 

'   Regiatnim  Moraviense,  p.  13. 

-  Tliis  reference   by  Pope  Innocent  Third 
VOL.  I. 

is  dated  from  St.  Peter's  at  Eome,  7th  April 
1207. — [Registmm  Moraviense,  p.  39.] 
^  Ihkl  p.  40.  *  Ibid.  \\  44. 



interest.  But  although  Dishop  Andrew  was  the  bulkier  of  the  church,  its 
establishment  on  its  present  site  was  due  to  Bishop  Brice,  who,  while  at 
Eome  attending  the  Lateran  Council  in  the  year  1215,  personally  importuned 
the  Pope  for  his  consent  to  this  arrangement.  In  a  letter  to  Bishop  Andrew, 
dated  from  Rome,  10th  April  1224,  after  the  death  of  Bishop  Brice,  Pope 
Honorius  in.  thus  refers  to  the  matter : — 

"  Coming  to  our  presence  our  venerable  brother,  the  Bishop  of  Moray,  often 
explained  to  us,  and  frequently  in  our  hearing,  insisted  that  his  seat  stood  in  a  situation 
not  only  somewhat  unsafe  in  the  event  of  war,  but  also  so  solitary  that  nothing  could 
be  found  for  sale,  in  consequence  of  which  the  clergy  had  to  make  long  journies  to 
purchase  the  necessaries  of  life,  to  the  no  small  hindrance  of  their  ecclesiastical  duties  : 
Wherefore  the  said  Bishop,  with  many  pressing  petitions,  entreated  us  to  sanction  the 
transference  of  the  seat  to  a  more  convenient  place,  to  wit,  the  Church  of  the  Holy 
Trinity,  near  Elgin,  which  the  Bishop  asserts  is  also  desired  by  the  King  of  Scotland,^ 
and  the  Chapter  of  Moray."- 

During  the  episcopate  of  Brice  of  Douglas,  a  controversy  arose  between 
him,  King  William  the  Lion,  and  Gilchrist  Earl  of  Mar,  respecting  the 
patronage  of  the  church  of  Aberkirdor,  each  of  the  three  parties  laying  claim 
to  it.  The  difficulty  was  solved  by  each  making  over  his  claim  to  the 
Monastery  of  Arbroath.^  The  Bishop  in  addition  granted  a  davoch  of  land 
belonging  to  the  church  in  question,*  and  to  the  same  Monaster}'  he  confirmed 
the  grant  of  the  church  of  Inverness,  made  at  the  request  of  King  William, 
by  his  predecessor,  Bishop  Eichard.^ 

In  another  controversy,  which  took  place  a  few  years  after  his  elevation 
to  the  See  of  Moray,  the  Bishop  was  assigned  by  the  Pope  the  part  of  peace- 
maker.     Patrick  Earl   of  Dunbar  had   violently  occupied  some  pasturage 

^  King   Alexander  the  Second    sanctioned  ^  Registrum  Mora\-iense,  p.  63. 

the  transference  as  a  most  desirable  change,  -^  Registnim   Yetus   de   Aberbrothoc,   pp. 

His  mandate  is  dated  at  Musselburgh  on  5th  25,  142. 
July  1224. — [Registrum  Moraviense,  p.  19.]  *  IblJ.  p.  144.  *  Ihkl.  p.  141. 



liolonging  to  the  Cistercian  :\fonks  of  ]\relrose,  for  which  offeuce  he  was 
summoned  to  appear  before  an  ecclesiastical  court.     Disregarding  the  sum- 
mons, the  Earl  was  adjudged  guilty  of  contumacy,  and  the  court  fulminated 
an  interdict  against  his  lands.     This  had  the  effect  of  causing  the  Earl  to 
enter  appearance,  only,  however,  to  decline  the  court's  jurisdiction  in  the 
matter,  and  tliis  plea  failing,  to  reclaim  against  his  judges,  who  were  the  Earl's 
own  Bishop,  and  some  others.      On  his  submission  the  interdict  had  been 
removed.     He  afterwards  appealed  the  whole  matter  to  the  Pope,  requesting 
an  examination  into  his  grounds  of  complaint.    This  was  made,  and  the  Pope 
finding  them  too  weU  founded,  referred  the  settlement  of  the  dispute  to  Brice, 
Bishop  of  .Aloray.     The  Bishop  took  effectual  means  to  bring  the  matter  to  a 
satisfactory  issue,  and  set  up  his  tribunal  in  the  Boyal  Court  at  Selkirk,  where 
King   William   himself,   and   Prince   Alexander,   with   the   more   powerful 
courtiers  and  clergy,  acted  as  assessors.     The  result  was  that  Earl  Patrick 
was  obliged  to  cede   the   disputed   pasturage   to   the   monks   in   free  and 
perpetual  alms,  and  free  from  aU  service  or  custom.    The  subject  of  dispute 
was  a  field  called  Sonilesfield,  on  the  west  side  of  the  river  Leader,  towards 
the  grange  of  the  :\ronks  of  .Alelrose,  and  formerly  held  by  William  Sorules. 

An  attestation  by  Bishop  Brice  of  Douglas,  narrating  the  mandate  by 
Pope  Innocent  in.,  to  him,  to  moderate  in  the  case,  with  other  relative 
documents,  is  preserved  in  the  Melrose  collection  of  charters,  belono-incr  to 
His  Grace  the  Duke  of  Buccleuch.  To  that  attestation  is  stiU  appended  the 
episcopal  seal  of  Bishop  Brice,  in  a  remarkable  state  of  preservation,  consider- 
ing that  it  must  date  from  the  commencement  of  the  thirteenth  century. 
SmaU  portions  at  the  top  and  bottom  are  broken  off,  but  these  fortunately  can 
be  supplied  from  an  engraving,  executed  for  the  Cartulary  of  Moray,  and 
drawn  from  this  and  seals  appended  to  other  documents  by  the  Bishop,  in 
the  Melrose  and  Coldingham  collections.^  The  seal  is  of  tlie  usual  oval  shape, 

»  Registrum  Mora\-iense,  printed  in  1S.37  for  the  Bannatyne  Club,  Plate  I.  Fig.  1. 



and  shows  a  profile  figure  of  the  Bishop  in  his  canonical  robes,  his  right 
hand  raised  in  the  act  of  benediction,  and  his  left  holding  the  crozier. 
Around  the  figure  is  the  inscription — 


On  the  back  is  an  oval  counterseal  with  the  representation,  in  an  antique  gem, 
apparently  of  ^linerva,  holding  a  sword  in  her  right  hand,  while  her  left  rests 
upon  a  shield.     The  gem  is  surrounded  by  the  legend — 


m  rt  ■if-  W 




The  attestation  of  Bishop  Brice  possesses  the  additional  peculiarity  of 
being  one  of  a  few  docmnents  on  record  in  which  the  sovereign  himself 
appears  as  a  witness.     Along  with  King  AVilliam,  his  son  Prince  Alexander, 

HIS  SEAL.  53 

liis  brotlier  David  Earl  of  Huntingdon,  the  king's  son  Eobert  of  London  (or 
Lundin),  and  most  of  the  chief  courtiers,  sanctioned  the  insertion  of  their 
names.  So  did  they  likewise  to  a  separate  agreement  between  Earl  Patrick 
and  the  monks  of  ]\Ielrose,  which  is  witnessed  by  Bishop  Brice,  and  con- 
firmed by  tlie  appending  of  his  seal  (now  in  a  fragmentary  condition),  along 
with  the  seals  of  the  Earl,  and  Henry,  Abbot  of  Kelso.  King  William  con- 
firmed this  agreement,  and  Bishop  Brice  is  the  first  named  witness,  while 
he  also  attests  the  charter  of  tlie  land  granted  by  Earl  Patrick  to  tlie 
monks  of  Melrose,  which  was  likewise  confirmed  by  the  king.^ 

Bishop  Brice,  with  his  brothers  Henry  and  Alexander,  witnessed  a  charter 
by  the  Princess  Margaret,  wife  of  Sir  Eustace  de  Vescy,  granting  to  the 
monks  of  Kelso  twenty  shillings  annually  from  her  mill  of  Sprouston.- 
These  two  brothers,  along  with  another,  Hugh,  he  appointed  canons  of 
Spynie,  while  a  fourth,  Freskin,  obtained  the  high  office  of  Dean. 

At  the  request  of  his  uncle,  Freskin  of  Kerdal,  Bishop  Brice  devoted  the 
tithes  of  the  church  of  Deveth  (Daviot),  of  which  his  uncle  was  patron,  to 
maintain  the  fabric  of  the  Cathedral  Church  of  Spynie.^ 

Several  of  the  additions  made  to  the  See  of  Moray  during  the  episcopate 
of  Bishop  Brice  may  be  enumerated.  From  Gilbert  of  Kathern  (Strathern  ?) 
he  received  the  church  of  Kingussie,  along  with  the  chapel  of  Banchory ;  * 
from  various  laymen  he  had  the  churches  of  Dulbatelach,  Keith,  and 
Edindivach;^  from  King  Alexander  the  Second  he  obtained  the  rent  and 
service  due  to  the  Crown  from  the  land  of  Kethmalrus  in  exchange  for 
the  land  at  Invernairn  (Nairn),  which  King  William  had  taken  from  the 
bishop  in  order  to  build  upon  it  the  castle  and  town  of  Nairn  ;^  while  from 

1  Liber  de  Melros,  vol.  i.  pp.  87-95  ;  Acts  '  Registrum  Moraviense,  p.  61. 

of  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland,   vol.   i.  pp.  *  Ibid.  p.  14. 

.390-392.  '  Ibid.  p.  16. 

■^  Liber  de  Calchoii,  p.  174.  «  Ibid.  p.  18. 


Malcolm  Earl  of  Fife  came  a  grant  of  the  church  of  luveraven,  with  a  davoch 
of  land  attached  thereto.^  The  only  charter  granted  by  him  of  the  church 
lands  of  Moray,  to  which  reference  need  be  made,  is  one  in  which  the  Bishop, 
with  the  consent  of  the  whole  Synod  of  the  church  of  Moray,  bestowed  upon 
the  Monastery  of  Kelso  the  important  church  of  Birnie.- 

In  the  early  and  troubled  years  of  the  reign  of  King  Alexander  the 
Second,  when  the  English  barons  and  nation,  with  Scotland  also  for  assisting 
them  in  their  opposition  to  King  John  and  the  Pope,  were  laid  under 
Papal  interdict  by  Gualo,  the  Eoman  legate.  Bishop  Brice  appears  to  have 
subjected  himself  to  ecclesiastical  discipline,  and  to  have  been  excommuni- 
cated. Wliat  the  precise  reasons  for  this  procedure  were  do  not  clearly 
appear.  In  his  letter  of  remission  Pope  Honorius  Tliird  says  the  Bishop 
had  offended  him  and  the  Eoman  Church  in  many  things,  one  of  which 
was  that,  after  the  interdict  had  been  proclaimed,  he  personally  troubled 
the  Pope.  Another  charge  was  that,  also  after  the  promulgation  of  the 
interdict,  he  had  performed  divine  service.  This  the  Bishop  wholly  denied, 
but  did  not  thereby  remove  the  suspicions  of  the  sovereign  Pontiff,  who, 
however,  on  his  humbly  expressing  contrition,  absolved  him  from  censure, 
and  commanded  the  inhabitants  of  Moray  to  receive  and  obey  him  again  as 
the  bishop  and  pastor  of  their  souls  in  things  pertaining  to  the  Lord.  This 
absolution  was  granted  on  5th  November  1218.^ 

Only  a  few  weeks  later,  on  the  30th  of  January,  the  same  Pope  issued  a 
mandate  to  the  abbots  of  Cupar,  Scone,  and  Dunfermline,  appointing  them 
judges  to  inquire  into  the  truth  of  certain  grave  charges  against  the  life  and 
morals  of  the  Bishop,  preferred  by  his  own  archdeacon  and  chancellor.  These 
charges  w^ere,  that  seeking  only  milk  and  wool  from  the  flock  committed  to 
him,  he  extorted  sometimes  the  eighth  and  sometimes  the  third  part  of  their 

1  Registnim  Moraviense,  p.  58.  -  Liber  de  Calchou,  p.  29G. 

'  Theiner's  Vetera  Monumenta,  p.  6,  No.  xiv. 


(the  coinplainers')  rents  at  his  pleasure,  besides  demanding  money  in  name 
of  procuratoiy,  althougli  he  did  not  discharge  the  office  of  visiting  their 
churches,  wliile  he  not  only  received,  but  exacted  money  from  those  to  be 
ordained  ;  that  he  dissipated  in  meat  and  drink  the  money  collected,  con- 
suming it  with  wenches,  by  keeping  company  with  whom  he  was  evil  spoken 
of;  that  he  dissolved  lawful  marriages  for  money,  and  tolerated  those  that  are 
illegal,  overlooking  the  sins  of  his  subjects,  not  because  they  were  penitent,  but 
for  money ;  all  which  he  did,  notwithstanding  frequent  brotherly  admonitions 
from  the  complainers  to  reform  his  way  of  living.^ 

Nothing  further  is  recorded  as  to  this  fama  against  the  bishop.  He  con- 
tinued in  his  office  until  his  death  in  the  year  1222.-  He  is  said  to  have 
been  buried  at  Spynie.  After  liis  death  he  was  canonised,  and  received  a 
place  in  the  Scottish  Calendar  of  Saints,  his  day  being  the  1 3th  of  November, 
although  in  Dempster's  Menologium  Scoticmn  it  is  erroneously  placed  under 
12th  August,  and  the  following  note  inserted : — 

"  Chanriae  seu  Canonicae  beati  Brixii,  qui  prior  in  Lesmahago  Moraviae 
episcopus  renuntiatus  sanctissime  vixit."^ 

He  is  referred  to  in  a  charter  dated  in  1313,  by  one  of  the  friars  of  the 
monastery  of  Arbroath,  as  St.  Brice,  bishop  and  confessor.* 

^  Theiner's  Vetera  Monuinenta,  p.  9. 
-  Registrum  Moraviense,  p.  .359. 

■^  Forbes's  Kalendars  of  Scottish  Saints,  p.  20S. 
*  Registrum  Vetus  de  Aberbrothoc,  p.  292. 

I).m  <j3 

^o^ouwcns  cpc. 




CONSTANCE,  his  Wife. 

Circa  1240—1276. 

ALTHOUGH  no  charter  evidence  appears  to  have  survived  to  furnish 
-^^  strict  legal  proof  that  Sir  William  of  Douglas  was  the  son  of  Sir 
Archibald,  the  fact  that  soon  after  the  latter  disappears  from  record,  Sir 
William  is  found  in  possession  of  the  Douglas  lands,  and  occupying  tlie 
prominent  position  due  to  the  head  of  such  a  house,  leads  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  presumed  relationship  had  really  existed.  Sir  William  was  prol)ably 
born  about  the  year  1200,  as  in  a  plea  before  an  English  court  in  the  year 
1267,  afterwards  to  be  referred  to,  he  stated  that  he  was  above  age  for  a  duel, 
i.e.  above  sixty.  He  is  said  to  have  been  "  of  tall  and  goodly  stature,"  which 
procured  for  him  the  soubriquet  of  "  Longleg."^  The  earliest  record  of  him  is 
as  a  witness  to  a  charter  by  Maldouen  Earl  of  Lennox,  at  Eintry,  on  2d  March 
1238-9,  in  company  with  Sir  David  of  Lindsay,  Justiciar  of  Lothian,  Sir  Wil- 
liam of  Lindsay,  Sir  Alexander  Comyn,  Sir  David  Comyn,Sir  David  de  Graliam, 
and  others.-  Two  years  later  King  Alexander  the  Second  was  at  Lanark,  and 
there  confirmed  a  charter  of  the  land  of  Little  Kype  to  the  Priory  of  Lesma- 
hagow,  and  to  this  charter  Sir  William  M-as  also  a  witness.^  He  is  named  in 
public  records  during  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  King  Alexander  the  Second, 
and  through  the  most  stirring  period  of  that  of  King  Alexander  the  Third. 
The  death  of  Iving  Alexander  the  Second  in  1249,  while  his  sou  and 

1  Hume    of    Godscroft's   ms.    History,    at  -  Cartularium  de  Leveuax,  p.  .'}!. 

Hamilton  Palace.  •*  Liber  de  Calchou,  p.  151. 


successor  was  a  boy  of  only  eight  years  of  age,  threw  Scotland  into  a  state 
of  commotion.  Previous  to  the  death  of  the  king,  the  relations  of  Scotland 
with  England  had  been  temporarily  placed  on  a  satisfactory  footing,  without 
any  concessions  to  the  unrighteous  pretensions  of  King  Henry  the  Third  to 
the  vassalage  of  the  Scottish  Crown.  But  the  sad  event  revived  the  hopes 
of  the  English  king,  and  he  forthwith  laboured  to  accomplish  by  artifice  and 
intrigue  wdiat  he  could  not  effect  by  force. 

Five  days  after  the  death  of  King  Alexander  the  Second  the  coronation  of 
the  young  king  took  place.  The  proposal  to  crown  the  king  was  received 
with  motions  for  delay  from  a  part  of  the  nobility,  but  by  the  skilfid  manage- 
ment of  Walter  Comyn,  Earl  of  Menteith,  all  impediments  were  set  aside,  and 
the  coronation  proceeded.  Walter  Comyn  was  the  leader  of  the  patriotic  or 
national  party,  who  made  it  their  business  to  counteract  the  machinations  of 
Henry  and  his  supporters.  The  objections  are  thought  to  have  been  put 
forward  by  Alan  Durward,  the  Justiciar  of  Scotland,  who  was  the  recog- 
nised leader  of  a  party  in  Scotland  favourable  to  the  pretensions  of  the 
English  king.  Although  associated  with  the  English  party,  Durward  may 
really  liave  been  actuated  by  motives  of  personal  ambition.  He  was  married 
to  Marjory,  a  natural  daughter  of  King  Alexander  the  Second,  and  appears  to 
have  been  labouring  at  Eome  for  his  wife's  legitimation,  whereby,  in  the  event 
of  the  death  of  King  Alexander  the  Third  without  issue,  his  wife  might  come 
to  the  throne.  In  exchange  for  Henry's  aid,  therefore,  he  may  have  been 
willing  to  sacrifice  the  independence  of  his  country.  It  was  on  this  very 
ground  that  Henry  procured  his  banishment  from  the  councils  of  the  young 
king  on  the  occasion  of  his  marriage  to  the  Princess  Margaret  of  England, 
King  Henry's  daughter,  at  York,  in  1251.  Durward,  however,  only  passed 
from  the  service  of  Alexander  to  that  of  Henry,  and  a  few  years  later  saw 
him  reinstated  with  the  principal  men  of  his  party  on  the  council  of  tht- 
young  king  Alexander,  while  the  national  partv  was  removed. 

VOL.  I. 


Sir  William  of  Douglas  appears  to  have  thrown  in  his  lot  with  the  English 
party.  He  is  mentioned  as  one  of  the  magnates  of  Scotland  present  at  the 
meeting  between  Kings  Alexander  and  Henry  at  rioxburgh,  on  20th  September 
1255,  by  whose  advice  the  old  guardians  of  the  king  were  removed,  and  from 
among  whom  the  new  Council  was  selected.^  Douglas,  however,  was  not  one 
of  the  new  Councillors. 

Most  of  the  barons  holding  lands  in  the  south  of  Scotland,  including  the 
Earls  of  Dunbar  and  Carrick,  and  Eobert  de  Brus,  identified  themselves  with 
the  English  party.  This  may  account  for  Sir  AVilliam  Douglas  being  found 
in  a  similar  position.  A  more  probable  reason,  however,  presents  itself  in 
the  fact  that  he  held  lands  in  Northumberland ;  and  as,  by  the  arbitral  decision 
of  Cardinal  Otho,  papal  legate,  that  county  had,  in  1242,  been  assigned  to 
England,  Douglas  was  placed  in  the  delicate  position  of  either  losing  his 
English  lands  by  opposition  to  Henry,  or  joining  the  English  party. 

The  chief  possession  held  by  Douglas  on  the  English  side  of  the  Tweed  was 
the  manor  of  Fawdon,  now  situated  in  the  parish  of  Ingram  in  Northumberland. 
He  held  it  for  half  a  knight's  fee,  of  Gilbert  of  Umfraville,  a  young  Border 
Baron,  who  also  possessed  the  earldom  of  Angus  in  Scotland,  wliich  he  inherited 
from  his  mother,  Matilda,  Countess  of  Angus.  The  lordship  of  Eedesdale,  in 
which  the  manor  of  Fawdon  lay,  had  been  a  possession  of  the  Umfravilles  since 
the  Conquest,  and  was  held  on  the  tenure  that  its  owners  should  defend  the 
lordship,  valley,  and  forest  of  Eedesdale  from  enemies  and  wolves,  with  the 
sword  worn  by  King  William  the  Conqueror  when  he  entered  Northumberland.'- 

In  reference  to  the  possession  by  William  of  Douglas  of  the  manor  of 
Fawdon,  it  has  been  suggested  by  Mr.  Eiddell  that  the  Douglases  were  a 
Northumbrian  family.^     Foundation  for  this  assertion  was  produced  in  the 

1  Acta,  of  the  Parliamenta  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  419. 

2  Hodgson's  Northumberland,  vol.  iii.  jiart  ii.  pp.  3,  4,  note. 

^  Remarks  upon  Scotch  Peerage  Law,  1S33,  p.  175,  Appendix  No.  vi. 



shape  of  an  English  record,  which  instructs  that  Douglas  held  Pawdon  some 
time  before  the  year  1267.  But  the  statements  in  that  record,  to  which 
reference  will  presently  be  made,  warrant  no  conclusion  as  to  the  descent  or 
origin  of  the  Douglases,  but  simply  that  at  a  certain  date  they  were  in 
possession  of  lands  in  Northumberland.  Whatever  relations  William  of 
Douglas  had  to  that  county  appear  to  have  been  personal  to  himself,  and 
nothing  whatever  has  been  found  in  the  very  complete  records  of  Xorthum- 
berland  to  throw  any  light  on  the  Douglas  origin. 

The   record   referred  to  by  Islv.  Riddell,  which  is  also  corroborated   by 
other   authorities,  states  that  William   of  Douglas,  on  13th  October  1267, 
accused  his  overlord,  Gilbert  of  Umfraville,  Lord  of  Eedesdale,  of  a  series  of 
offences  against  the  person  and  property  of  the  complainer.     One  charge  was, 
that  Umfraville,  with  his  follower,  John  of  Herlaw,  falsely  represented  to 
Prince  Edward  at  the  siege  of  Alnwick,  that  Douglas  was  an  enemy  of  the 
king.     Umfraville  had  at  the  same  time  begged  from  the  Prince  a  gift  of 
Douglas's  manor  of  Fawdon,  which  the  Prince  granted  on  the  condition  of 
its  being  proved  that  what  Umfraville  stated  was  true,  and  gave  instructions 
for  the  seizure  of  the  lands  of  Douglas  pending  inquiry.     The  investigation 
was  made  by  a  jury,  who  averred  on  oath  that  the  accusation  against  Douglas 
was  false;  that  he  had  never  appeared  in  arms  against  the  Iving  or  Prince  of 
England,  nor  committed  any  offence  for  which  he  ought  to  be  dispossessed. 
Upon  this  decision  the  king  and  his  son  commanded  Douglas  to  be  reinstated 
in  Fawdon. 

The  mandate  had  been  obeyed  and  Douglas  replaced  in  possession,  but 
according  to  his  own  account,  he  had  not  been  many  days  in  the  manor, 
when  Umfraville,  by  Herlaw's  advice,  made  a  violent  assault  upon  him. 
One  hundred  men  of  Eedesdale,  some  of  them  outlaws,  on  the  eve  of  St. 
Margaret  (19th  July),  attacked  the  house  of  Fawdon,  while  Douglas  and  his 
family  were  within.     These   marauders   applied   fire  in  three   places    upon 



William  liiiiiself,  his  wife,  William  his  sou,  and  their  servants  Henr}'  of 
Mulefen,  William  of  Wardrope,  Patric  of  Duglas,  and  Gillerothe  of  Duglas, 
and  in  the  end  forcibly  ejected  Douglas  from  his  manor.  He  was  carried  a 
prisoner  to  Umfraville's  castle  of  Harbottle,  and  detained  there  for  eleven 
days.  William  of  Douglas,  the  younger,  was  wounded  by  the  assailants  in  the 
neck  with  a  sword,  "  so  that  they  all  but  cut  off  his  head."  They  also  carried 
off  his  goods,  consisting  of  money,  silver  spoons,  cups,  mazers,  clothes,  arms, 
and  jewels,  such  as  gold  rings  and  gold  fermails,  to  the  value  of  £100.  The 
four  servants  named  were  also  wounded,  and  were  robbed  of  a  sword,  value 
two  shillings,  a  "  supertunice,"  a  belt,  a  purse  with  three  silver  shillings,  and 
other  small  things  valued  at  a  mark. 

Such  were  the  charges  made  against  Umfraville  by  William  of  Douglas  in 
1267,  but  owing  to  certain  informalities  in  the  method  of  charge,  the 
defendants  successfully  resisted  the  plea,  which  was  dismissed  as  not 
sufficiently  proven,^  Two  years  later,  in  June  1269,  the  case  again  came  up 
before  the  Royal  Justices  and  an  assize  at  Newcastle-on-Tyne.  The  chief 
points  of  the  dispute  were  re-stated,  and  the  judgment  of  the  Court  was 
that  WOliam  of  Douglas  and  his  wife  Custaucia  should  recover  seizin,  and 
Gilbert  of  Umfraville  was  lined.^ 

At  the  same  assize,  Douglas  himself  was  summoned  to  appear  in  answer 
to  a  complaint,  the  circumstances  of  which  seem  to  throw  some  light  on  the 
way  in  which  Fawdon  was  acquired,  Gylemin  of  Wollouere  accused  Douglas 
of  having  deforced  him  of  30  shillings  of  rent  in  Faundon  (Fawdon),  which 
Wniiam  Batayle  had  leased  to  the  plaintiff  for  a  term  not  yet  expired. 
Gylemin's  statement  was  that  his  lease  was  dated  at  Candlemas  1264  for  the 
term  of  six  years,  and  that  William  Batayle,  on  the  3d  IMay  follo\nng,  sold 
the  rent  to  William  of  Douglas,  whereupon  the  latter  ejected  the  plaintiff 

^  Placitonim  Abbreviatio,  p.  166;  Calendar  of  Documents  relating  to  Scotland,  ISSl, 
vol.  i.  pp.  485-487.  ^  Ihid.  p.  510. 


within  the  term,  to  his  damage  as  he  asserted,  estimated  at  £20.  Douolas 
defended  the  action,  which  was  finally  compromised.^ 

This  narrative  seems  to  imply  that  Douglas  acquired  Fawdou  or  part  of 
it  by  purchase,  about  the  year  1264,  and  not,  as  Mr.  Eiddell  implies,  by  gift 
from  Prince  Edward.-  The  latter  view  is  founded  on  a  misreading  of  the 
document  already  referred  to  as  narrating  the  attack  on  Fawdon.  William  of 
Douglas,  however,  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  iSTorthumberland  so  early 
as  1241,  when  he  is  stated  in  the  Pipe  EoU,  as  a  surety  for  payment  of  a 
fine  due  by  Michael  Fitz  Michael  of  Eyhulle.^  At  a  later  date,  in  1256,  he 
granted  to  his  son  William  a  carucate  and  40  acres  of  land  in  Warentham.* 
If  this  be  Warndon  or  Warnden,  as  would  appear  from  a  comparison  of  names, 
it  lay  in  the  parish  of  Bamborough,  some  distance  from  Fawdon.  Nothing 
definite,  however,  can  be  found  as  to  William  of  Douglas's  possession  of  the 
land  in  question. 

In  regard  to  the  suggestion  that  Fawdon  was  acquired  by  purchase,  the 
history  of  that  manor,  so  far  as  it  can  be  traced,  may  be  briefly  sketched,  as 
bearing  upon  the  possibility  that  William  of  Douglas  intermarried  with  the 
family  of  Batayle,  who  held  Fawdon  in  1264,  and  from  whom  it  was  apparently 
purchased.  Immediately  after  the  Conquest,  Eobert  "  with  the  beard " 
(cum-barba),  the  first  of  the  Umfravilles  in  England,  granted  his  manor  of 
Fawdon  to  his  retainer,  Gilbert  Bataill.  In  1207  the  heir  in  possession  was 
Heniy  Bataill,  as  appears  from  a  suit  between  Eichard  of  Umfraville  and 
Eustace  de  Yesci  to  determine  their  respective  rights  to  the  custody  of  the 
heir  of  Fawdon.^     Henry  Bataill  had  an  uncle  WiUiam,  son  of  his  grand- 

*  Calendar  of  Documents  relating  to  Scot-  ^  Hodgson's  Northumberland,  vol.  iii.  part 

land,  1881,  vol.  i.  pp.  510,  511.  iii.  p.  197. 

*  Calendar  of  Documents  relating  to  Scot- 

-  Remarks  upon  Scotch  Peerage  Law,  183.S,       laud,  1881,  vol.  i.  p.  .'594. 
}i.  175,  Appendix  No.  vi.  '^  Placitorum  Abbreviatio,  p.  100. 


fiither  Walter/  aud  between  1100  and  1216  Constancia,  wife  of  William 
Bataill,  had  a  plea  with  John  Fitz  Simon.-  Henry  Bataill's  mother  also 
was  named  Constancia,  and  received  her  dowry  about  1207,  about  the  date 
of  the  death  of  her  husband,  also  named  Henry.^ 

In  1264  the  manor  of  Fawdon  Avas  apparently  in  possession  of  William 
Bataill,  a  son  of  Henry  Bataill,  aud  this  William,  as  already  stated,  sold  the 
manor  or  a  portion  of  it  to  William  of  Douglas.  It  is  on  record  that  about 
the  year  1219  a  William  Bataill,  though  whether  the  same  person  is  not 
clear,  married  one  of  four  sisters  of  William  Flamwill  and  daughters  of 
Eoger  Flamwill.*  They  were  heiresses  of  the  "  vill "  or  town  of  Whit- 
tingham,  which  they  held  of  the  king  in  chief,  and  in  1257,  Robert  Bataill, 
eldest  son  of  Constance  or  Custancia  Flamvill,  was  declared  heir  to  his 
mother,  and  did  homage  for  her  lands,^  that  is  for  her  share  of  Whittingham 
and  others.  From  the  frequent  recurrence  of  the  Christian  name  Constance 
or  Custancia  in  the  family  of  Bataill,  it  is  not  assuming  too  much  to  suppose 
that  Custancia,  the  wife  of  William  of  Douglas,  who  with  him  was  re-infeft 
in  the  manor  of  Fawdon,  w^as  herself  a  Bataill.  If  so,  then  whether  AViUiam 
of  Douglas  purchased  the  whole  of  the  manor  in  1264,  or  only  a  part  of  it,  he 
would  have  a  close  tie  to  the  property  by  marriage  with  a  member  of  the 
family  in  possession.^  This,  however,  cannot  be  stated  with  certainty,  as 
from  the  frequent  occurrence  of  the  name  in  the  records,  it  would  appear 
that  Constancia  was  at  that  date  rather  a  common  name  in  Northumberland. 

*  Pipe  Roll,  11S2;  Hodgson's  Xorthumber-       dar  of  Documents  relating  to  Scotland,  ISSl, 
land,  vol,  iii.  part  ni.  p.  35.  voL  L  p.  448. 

2  Calendar  of  Documents  relating  to  Scot-  ^  A  Richard  Batail,  in  1256,  paid  203.  for 

land,  18S1,  vol.  i.  p.  115.  a  licence  to  agree  with  Archibaud  de  Douglas 

"  Hodgson's  Northumberland,  vol.  iii.  part  and  Alina,  his  wife,  as  to  a  jilea  of  land. — 

III.  p.  98.  [Calendar  of  Documents  relating  to  Scotland, 

*  Ihhl.  vol.  i.  part  in,  p.  228  ;  vol.  iii.  part  ISSl,    vol.    i.    p.    395.]       Some   connection. 
ITT.  pp.  119  et  S€q.  therefore,    existed  between  the   Batails  aud 

^  Calendarium  Genealogicum,  p.  91  ;  Calen-       Douglases. 

TAKES  PAirr  ly  Scottish  affairs. 

It  is  not  improbable  tliat  Custaucia  may  have  beeu  a  second  wife  to 
William  of  Douglas.  His  second  son  William  was  a  minor  in  1256,  and 
two  guardians,  one  of  them  a  female,  were  appointed  to  look  after  him  and  tlie 
land.  The  elder  William  himself,  in  the  year  1267,  was  by  his  own  account 
above  sixty  years  of  age.^  Fawdon  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  Douglases 
until  1296,  when  it  was  confiscated  by  King  Edward  the  First.  Tn  a  list  made 
up  by  the  English  Sheriffs  of  lands  in  their  separate  jurisdictions,  which  hud 
belonged  to  and  been  taken  from  Scotsmen,  William  Douglas  (son  of  the  sub- 
ject of  this  memoir)  is  described  as  owner  of  Fawdon  in  Northumberland. 
The  manor  of  Warentham  or  Warndon  is  not  named  as  in  his  possession. 
Fawdon  was  restored  for  a  short  time  by  King  Edward  the  Thii'd  to  Sir  James 
of  Douglas  in  the  year  1329,  but  was  again  forfeited  at  a  later  period. 

The  narrative  of  Sir  William  of  Douglas's  relations  to  his  English  manor 
has,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  been  given  in  a  consecutive  form,  but  he  pro- 
bably resided  there  only  in  his  later  years.  Between  1241,  when  he  is  named 
first  in  English  record,  and  1267,  Sir  William  of  Douglas  appears  in  Scottish 
matters,  not  only,  as  narrated,  in  public  life,  but  in  more  private  transactions, 
especially  those  affecting  properties  near  his  family  estates.  In  1248  he 
witnessed,  in  company  with  his  brother  Andrew,  at  Musselburgh,  in  close 
proximity  to  his  lands  of  Herdmanston,  a  quitclaim  by  John  Gallard  or 
Gailard  to  the  Monastery  of  Dunfermline."  William  and  Andrew  of  Douglas 
also  appear,  about  the  year  1245,  as  witnesses  to  charters  granted  in  Linlith- 
gowshire, where  lay  the  lands  of  Livingston,  one  of  the  Douglas  domains, 
and  at  a  later  period,  in  1255,  Sir  WiUiam  and  Sir  Andi'ew  of  Douglas  both 
appended  their  seals,  in  company  with  the  rcsigner's  father,  to  a  deed  of 
resignation  by  Pialph  Xoble  of  lands  in  Tllieston.^ 

^  This  disposes  of  a  statement  by  Hume  of       sixty  was  considered  too  old  for  war  or  duel- 
Godscroft  that  this  William  went  to  Palestine       ling.  -  Registnim  de  Diinfermelj^n,  p.  97. 

as  a  Crusader  about  1270,  as  a  man  above  '  IledBookofMenteith,  vol,  ii.  pp.  209-211. 


In  the  year  1249  Sir  William  of  Douglas  was  apparently  at  Kiuloss  in 
Morayshire,  probably  on  a  visit  to  his  relatives,  the  house  of  De  Moravia. 
While  there,  on  the  17th  of  June,  he  attested  the  charter  of  an  annual  dona- 
tion by  Hugh,  son  of  Augustine  de  Moravia,  to  the  Hospital  of  Soutra  on  the 
confines  of  Midlothian,  of  two  shillings  from  his  mill  of  Wiston  in  Lanark- 
shire. Among  the  other  witnesses  to  the  charter  is  one  Duncan  of  Douglas, 
of  w^hom  no  further  information  has  been  obtained.^ 

Sir  AVilliam  of  Douglas  a  few  years  later  took  part  in  another  transaction, 
m  which  another  member  of  the  family  of  Moravia  was  concerned,  also 
affecting  lands  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  Douglasdale.  This  was  a 
document  in  the  form  of  an  agreement,  dated  at  Ancrum  in  1253,  between 
the  Bishop  of  Glasgow  and  the  chaplains  of  the  chapel  of  Osbernistoun,  and 
Sir  Walter  de  Moravia,  respecting  the  land  of  Osbernistoun,  in  the  barony  of 
Bothwell  and  county  of  Lanark.  Sir  Walter  of  Moray  held  the  land,  as  if  it 
was  his  own,  while  the  Bishop  of  Glasgow  and  the  chaplains  claimed  it  on  the 
ground  that  it  had  been  gifted  by  Sir  Walter's  ancestors  for  the  support  of 
the  two  chaplains  to  celebrate  masses  for  the  salvation  of  the  souls  of  the 
donors.  Moray  alleged  that  the  gift  was  invalid.  But  the  agreement 
disposed  matters  so  that  Sir  Walter  of  Moray  should  hold  the  land  in  farm 
of  the  bishop  and  the  chaplains,  and  pay  annually  to  one  of  the  two 
chaplains  nine  marks,  and  to  the  other  one  hundred  shillings.  For  this 
payment,  along  with  iVTark  de  Baylol,  William  de  Cliveland,  Stephen  Magnus, 
Eichard  Peticru,  and  Walter  Scott,  Sir  William  de  Dufgias  became  surety, 
and  bound  his  heirs  and  successors  to  the  same.  He,  with  the  others, 
affixed  his  seal  to  the  document." 

1  Charters  of  the  Collegiate  Churcbcs  of  Wiston  into  making  certain  grants  of  land.— 
Midlothian,  p.  30.  At  a  later  date,  in  1-2G2.  [Calendar  of  Documents  relating  to  Scotland, 
the  same  Hugh  de  Moravia  was  adjudged  by  a        ISSl,  vol.  i.  p.  555.] 

Lanarkshire  jury,  of  whom  a  Philip  de  Dun,  -  -  Registnim  Episcopatus  Glasguensis,  vol.  i. 

glas    was    one,    to    have    coerced     Henry    of       pp.  162-1G4. 


On  Palm  Sunday  (6tli  April)  of  the  year  12.59,  three  years  after  he  had 
bestowed  Wamdon,  in  Northumberland,  on  his  second  sou  William,  Sir  William 
of  Douglas  met  in  Edinburgh  Castle  with  Sir  Hugh  of  Abernethy,  Sherifi*  of 
Roxburgh  and  Forester  of  Selkirk,  and  arranged  the  terms  of  a  marriage- 
contract  between  Hugh,  the  eldest  son  and  heir  of  Sir  William  of  Douglas, 
and  Marjory,  the  sister  of  Sir  Hugh  of  Abernethy.^  While  Sir  William  of 
Douglas  had  in  the  civil  contests  sided  with  the  English  party,  Sir  Hugh  of 
Abernethy,  on  the  other  hand,  was  a  powerful  member  of  the  national  party. 
A  coalition,  however,  between  the  rival  factions  had  been  effected  in  the  pre- 
vious year,  and  among  those  present  at  this  contract  between  the  families  of 
Douglas  and  Abernethy  were  representatives  of  both  factions.  The  indenture 
then  prepared,  the  terms  of  which  will  be  considered  in  the  memoir  of  Hugh 
of  Douglas,  has  been  printed,  as  of  peculiar  interest,  not  only  to  the  Douglas 
family  as  one  of  their  earliest  muniments,  but  also  to  Scottish  liistory  as  the 
earliest  know^l  contract  of  marriage  in  Scotland. 

Within  a  year  before  the  attack  on  Fawdon,  and  apparently  about  the 
time  of  the  siege  of  Alnwick,  when  the  false  accusation  of  disloyalty  was 
made  against  him  to  Prince  Edward,  Sir  William  of  Douglas  was  in  Scotland. 
There  he  was  a  witness  to,  and  also  lent  his  seal  for,  the  greater  authentication 
of  a  deed  of  renunciation  made  by  a  neighbouring  proprietor  in  Lanarkshire, 
at  the  Court  of  King  Alexander  the  Third,  in  Eoxburgh  Castle.  Eobert  the 
Frank  of  Lambinistoun,  in  the  king's  presence,  on  20th  May  1266,  gave  up  to 
the  monks  of  Kelso  all  right  to  the  lands  of  Ardach,  in  the  fee  of  Lesmahagow, 
which  his  father  and  gTandfather  had  held,  and  from  which  they  had  derived 
their  designation.  Except  the  sheriffs  of  the  neighbouring  counties  of  Lanark, 
Roxburgh,  and  Peebles,  Sir  William  of  Douglas  is  the  only  landowner  of  the 
district  present  at  the  transaction.^ 

^  Vol.  iiL  of  this  work,  p.  1. 

2  Acts  of  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland,  vol.  xii.  p.  3  ;  Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  i.  p.  1.5.". 
VOL.  I.  I 


At  other  times,  also.  Sir  William  Douglas  witnessed  charters  referriir^  to 
the  Abbey  of  Kelso.^  On  the  occasion  of  a  dispute  between  the  monks  of 
Kelso  and  Sir  SyuKjn  Lockhart,  with  respect  to  the  teinds  of  the  church  of 
Symondstoun  (Symington),  he  was  one  of  the  "  nobles  "  in  whose  presence,  at 
Casteltarris  (Carstairs),  Sir  Symon  Lockhart  renounced  his  claim,  recognised 
the  right  of  the  Abbey  to  the  church  in  question,  and  pledged  himself,  upon 
oath,  under  pain  of  excommunication,  not  again  to  molest  the  monks  in  their 
possession  of  the  church.- 

From  the  abbot  and  monks  of  Kelso  Sir  William  of  Douglas  received,  in 
the  year  1270,  a  grant,  but  only  for  his  own  lifetime,  of  the  land  of  Polnele, 
in  their  holding  of  Lesmahagow.  It  is  said  to  be  given  for  the  faithful  counsel, 
help,  and  protection  afforded  to  the  Abbey  by  the  grantee,  who,  in  return,  was 
to  pay  yearly  to  the  Priory  or  House  of  Lesmahagow  two  pounds  of  wax.  The 
charter  was  granted  at  Glasgow^  on  (3d  February)  the  day  following  the  Feast 
of  the  Purification  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  in  a  full  court  of  Justiciars.^ 

The  only  other  event  recorded  of  Sir  William  of  Douglas  was  a  mission 
in  which  he  was  engaged,  along  with  two  of  his  neighbours,  Sir  John  of  Lam- 
bertoun  and  Pdchard  of  Biggartoun,  to  ascertain  for  the  king  the  extent  of 
the  lands  of  John  of  Pencaitland,  lying  west  of  the  river  Tyne.  This  was 
done,  and  the  lands  delivered  to  Aymer  de  Maxwell,  by  a  document  dated  at 
Pencaitland  on  24th  March  1261.* 

Whether  Sir  William  of  Douglas  was  more  than  once  married  has  not 
been  ascertained.  Godscroft,  in  his  printed  liistory,  states  that  William's 
^vife  was  Martha,  a  sister  of  Alexander  Earl  of  Carrick,  and  that  \w  her  he 
had  two  sons,  Hugh  and  William.^     But  in  the  manuscript  copy  of  his  work, 

1  Liber  de  Calchou,  voL  i.  p.  153.  *  Calendar  of  Documents  relating  to  Scot- 

,   „  ,   ..  land,  1881,  vol.  i.  p.  554. 

2  Thid.  vol.  il  p.  267.  .  „.  ^ 

"  History  of  the   Houses  of  Douglas  and 

3  Ibhl.  voL  i.  p.  168.  Angus,  1644,  p.  14. 


he  caUs  the  name  of  William's  wife  Isobel,  sister  of  Alexander,  Earl  of 
Carrick,  and,  in  addition  to  the  two  sons,  gives  him  a  daughter,  called  Isobel, 
after  her  mother,  and  who  was  married  to  Sir  William  Oliphant  of  Aberdalgy.' 
Godscroft's  storj^,  however,  is  improbable,  from  the  fact  that  there  was  no 
Alexander,  Earl  of  Carrick,  at  that  date,  and  in  the  pedigree  of  the  Earls, 
which  is  well  known,  no  daughter  is  said  to  have  married  William  of  Douglas. 
The  only  known  wife  of  the  latter  was  Custancia  or  Constance,  already 
referred  to,  whose  surname  has  not  been  recorded.  William  of  Douglas  died 
before  16th  October  1274,  and  was  survived  by  his  wife  Constance.^ 

No  trace  of  the  seal  of  Sir  WHUam  of  Douglas  is  known  to  exist,  but 
Godscroft  describes  the  seal  then  appended  to  the  charter  following  upon  the 
marriage  indenture  of  1 259  as  "  longer  then  broad,  fashioned  Hke  a  heart ;  the 
letters  thereon  are  worn  away  and  not  discernable,  save  only  W",  and  the 
armes  seem  to  be  three  starres  or  mullets  at  the  upper  end  thereof.''^ 

Sir  William  of  Douglas  had  at  least  two  sons,  Hugh  of  Douglas,  and 
WiUiam  of  Douglas  who  was  known  as  "  Le  Hardi."  xMemoirs  of  them  foUow. 
He  had  also  a  daughter  Willelma,  who  married  WilHam  of  Galbrathe,  son 
of  Sir  WilUam  of  Galbrathe  by  a  daughter  of  Sir  Jolin  Comyn,  grandfather 
of  Sir  John  Comyn,  one  of  the  Guardians  of  Scotland.  Sir  John  Comyn, 
who  died  about  1274,  gave  Dalserf  to  his  daughter  and  son-in-law  in  free 
marriage.     William   Galbrathe  and  Willelma  Douglas  had  four  daughters, 

the  eldest  of  whom  married  de  Cathe  [Keith],  and  had  issue  a   son 

Bernard  de  Cathe.  Joanna  was  the  heiress  of  Dalserf,  but  died  at  Candle- 
mas 1301,  before  her  mother,  who  was  in  possession  at  her  death  about 
Christmas  1302.^ 

1  Calendar  of  documents  relating  to  Scot-  3  Calendar,   ut  supra,   vol     ii    Xo     14-->o 

land,  vol.  ii.  Nos.  29,  30.  Inquest  as  to  WiUelma's  succession  held'at 

Lanark,  30th  December  1303.     A  Sir  Bernard 

-  History  of  the  Houses  of  Douglas  and  de  Kethe  appears  in  1307  attached  to  the 
Angus,  1644,  p.  13.  English  interest. 




Married  a.d.  1259. 

/^F  Hugh,  the  elder  of  the  two  ascertained  sons  of  Sir  William  of  Douglas, 
^^^  surnamed  the  "  Longleg,"  little  is  known  beyond  the  an-angements 
for  his  marriage  with  Marjory  of  Abernethy,  the  sister  of  Sir  Hugh  of 
Abernethy.  He  may  have  succeeded  his  fathei-,  Sir  W^illiam,  in  the  Douglas 
possessions  in  1274,  and  died  without  issue  a  few  years  thereafter.  But 
for  anything  that  has  been  discovered  to  the  contrary,  he  may  have 
predeceased  his  father. 

At  the  time  his  marriage  was  arranged,  Hugh  of  Douglas  was  under  age, 
and  apparently  his  intended  spouse  was  also  young.  The  terms  of  the 
indenture  obliged  Hugh,  son  and  heir  of  Sir  William  of  Douglas,  to  marry 
Marjory',  sister  of  Sir  Hugh  of  Abernethy,  immediately  after  the  following 
Easter,  so  that  all  things  might  be  finished  before  Ascension  Day  of  that 
year.  The  contract  made  between  the  father  of  Hugh  of  Douglas  and  the 
brother  of  Marjory  of  Abernethy,  at  Edinburgh  Castle,  was  only  concluded 
on  Palm  Sunday,  the  6th  of  April,  and  by  this  agreement,  ere  six  weeks  had 
come  and  gone,  the  marriage  was  to  be  celebrated.  Sir  Hugh  of  Abernethy 
bound  himself  to  give  with  his  sister  twenty  merks  worth  of  land  in  the 
town  of  Glencorse,  or  in  the  fee  of  Chamberlain  Newton,  and  Sir  William  of 
Douglas  promised  to  the  young  couple  an  equal  value  of  land  in  the  fee  of 
Douglas,  which  should  belong  to  Hugh  of  Douglas  and  his  heirs,  together 
with  the  rest  of  the  familv  inheritance  after  the  death  of  his  father.     Mean- 



while,  the  forty  merks  worth  of  land  were,  with  the  counsel  and  consent  of 
the  bride's  brother,  to  remain  with  the  Lord  of  Douglas  for  behoof  of  the 
young  couple  (pueris)  for  the  space  of  four  years,  by  which  time,  it  may  be 
presumed,  Hugh  of  Douglas  would  attain    his   majority.     Sir  William  of 
Douglas,  however,  was  to  find  safe  and  sufftcient  persons  as  securities  for 
delivering  the  lands  and  their  produce  to  the  spouses  at  the  expiry  of  the 
four  years.     During  that  period  Hugh  of  Douglas  and  his  wife  were  to  be 
furnished  with  the  necessaries  of  life  by  Sir  William  of  Douglas  and  Sir  Hugli 
of  Abernethy,  and  the  estate  was  to  account  for  these.     It  was  also  provided 
that  if,  on  the  one  hand,  Hugh  of  Douglas,  after  the  solemnisation  of  the 
marriage,  predeceased  his  father,  or  if  under  any  pretext  he  withdrew  at  any 
time  from  the  fulfilment  of  the  contract,  the  land  given  by  Sir  William  of 
Douglas  should  remain  with  Marjory  of  Abernethy  in  name  of  dowry.     If,  on 
the  other  hand,  Marjory  of  Abernethy  was  unwilling  to  fulfil  the  contract, 
the  land  given  by  Sir  Hugh  of  Abernethy  to  Hugh  of  Douglas  was  to' 
remain  in  possession  of  the  latter  during  life.     Both  parties  solemnly  swore 
to  observe  this  agreement,  which  was  made  in  presence  of  a  number  of 
witnesses,  among  others,  Alexander  Comyn,  Earl  of  Buchan,  Sir  Eeginald 
Cavers,  Sir  John   of  Dundemor,  Sii-  Andrew  of  Douglas,  Sir  Lawrence  of 
Montefixo,  and  Sir  Adam  of  Folkariston.i 

Hume  of  Godscroft  in  his  history  refers  to  a  charter  bestowed  at  this 
time  by  Sir  William  of  Douglas  upon  his  son  Hugh,  of  the  lands  of  Glespin, 
Hartwood,  Kennox,  Carmackhope,  and  Leholme,  all  lying  in  the  parish  of 
Douglas,  and  also  the  lands  then  in  dispute  between  him  and  the  heirs  of 
John  Crawford,  whose  estates  adjoined  those  of  the  Douglas  family  in 
Lanarkshire;  these  lands  to  be  for  a  dowry  to  his  son's  wife.  The  charter  is 
evidently  granted  in  terms  of  the  indenture  of  marriage  a.s  a  Hferent  portion 
to  Marjory  of  Abernethy  in  the  event  of  her  husband's  death.     According  to 

'  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  pp.  1,  2. 


Godscroft,  Sir  William  designates  his  son  Sir  Hugh,  or  Lord  Hugh  of 
Douglas.  That  historian  also  observes,  that  the  charter  contains  the  remark- 
able condition,  that  if  Hugh  of  Douglas  did  not  fulfil  the  part  of  a  husband 
to  his  wife,  and  if  he  lived  apart  from  her,  she  should  still  brook  and  enjoy 
these  lands.  The  same  would  hold  if  she  survived  her  husband.  And  if 
Hugh  of  Douglas  predeceased  his  father,  and  Marjory  of  Abernethy  survived 
Sir  William  of  Doudas,  she  should  receive  the  terce  of  his  lauds  in  Douf^las- 
dale,  with  the  exception  of  what  Sir  William  would  leave  to  his  own  wife. 
There  was  another  provision,  as  it  were,  says  Godscroft,  "  in  case  of  divorce- 
ment, or  not  consummating  the  marriage,"  that  if  Hugh  of  Douglas  were, 
after  his  father's  death,  living  lord  and  heir,  or  if  he  had  an  heir  by  any 
other  wife,  Marjory  of  Abernethy  should,  notwithstanding  thereof,  possess 
these  lands  all  the  days  of  the  life  of  Hugh  of  Douglas.  "Now,"  adds 
Godscroft,  "he  could  not  have  an  heir  by  another,  unless  he  were  first 
divorced  from  her"  (Marjory).  He  also  adds  that  in  this  charter,  of  which, 
indeed,  there  is  no  trace  elsewhere,  Sir  William  of  Douglas,  for  the  greater 
security  of  his  son's  wife,  promised,  that  if  Sir  Hugli  of  Abernethy  wished 
any  other  reasonable  guarantee,  by  charter  or  other  writ,  they  should  them- 
selves prepare  it,  and  he  would  sign  and  seal  it.^ 

The  only  other  information  recorded  by  Godscroft  concerning  Huo'h  of 
Douglas  is  traditional,  and  refers  to  his  character  as  prudent,  vigilant,  and 
active,  his  foes  never  finding  him  sleeping.  In  illustration  of  this,  the  anecdote 
is  related  that  one  of  the  smaller  lairds  in  Douglasdale,  Patton'Purdie,  who 
owned  a  piece  of  land  called  the  Umdrawod,  once,  with  his  sons,  lay  in 
ambush  by  the  wayside  to  kill  Hugh  of  Douglas.  The  latter  drew  near  the 
snare  unsuspectingly,  but  obtaining  warning  by  some  means,  and  beiiiLr 
unsupported  by  any  of  his  people,  he  tied,  pursued  by  his  would-be  murderers. 
In  a  short  time  a  number  of  his  followers  collected,  and  they  turning  upon 
1  History  of  the  Houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus,  1644,  p.  l.S. 


the  pursuers,  chased  them  some  distance,  and  put  them  to  death  upon  the 
highway.  Two  of  the  sons  of  Purdie  were  slain  at  one  phice,  and  to  mark 
the  event  a  cross  was  erected,  which  was  named  after  one  of  the  slain  men, 
Duns  Cross.  Patton  Purdie  himself  was  slain  at  a  place  called  Hardrig,  and 
another  cross  was  erected  at  that  spot,  which  was  afterwards  transferred  to 
the  town  of  Douglas,  and  obtained  the  distinction  of  becoming  the  market- 
cross.  The  foUowing  rhyme  is  said  to  belong  to  that  time,  and  to  have  been 
intended  to  immortalise  the  event : — 

"  Pattane  Purdie  brack  a  chaise 
Wpon  the  Lord  Douglas, 
Hugh  Lord  Douglas  turned  againe, 
And  there  was  Patton  Purdie  slaine."i 

Nothing  is  known  as  to  when  or  how  Hugh  of  Douglas  died,  but  he  and 
his  %vife,  Marjory  of  Abernethy,  are  said  to  have  been  buried  in  the  church  of 
St.  Bride's  in  Douglas,  where,  says  Godscroft,  their  tombs  are  still  to  be  seen.-' 
On  the  south  side  of  the  chancel  of  the  church,  between  the  altar  and  the 
priest's  door,'there  is  an  eftigy  of  a  female  in  a  recumbent  posture,  which  is 
generally  said  to  be  that  of  Marjory  of  Abernethy.  The  costume  is  of  this 
period.  From  the  figure  being  solitary  it  has  been  suggested  that  this  lady 
predeceased  her  husband.^ 

Although  at  this  time  the  union  with  the  powerful  family  of  Abernethy 
added  Httle  to  the  power  or  possessions  of  the  Douglases,  they,  at  a  later 
period,  became  possessed,  through  Lady  Margaret  Stewart,  Countess  of 
Angus,  of  the  entire  barony  of  Abernethy,  and  of  the  famous  Eound  Tower, 
which  is  similar  to  the  weU-known  Eound  Tower  of  Brechin.  The  second 
title  of  the  Earls  of  Angms  for  some  time  was  Lord  Abernethy. 

'  MS.    of   Hume-s   History,    at   Hamilton  ^  MS.  History  at  Hamilton  Palace. 

Upper  Ward  of  Lanarkshire,  vol.  ii.  p.  6 1 . 



ELIZABETH  STEWAKT,  his  fiest  Wife. 

ELEANOE  OF  LOVAIN  or  FEEREES,  his  second  Wife. 


r\F  the  early  history  of  this  bold  and  enterprising  Chief  of  the  Douglas 
^^  family,  comparatively  little  is  known,  and  that  little  is  to  be  gleaned  not 
from  the  annals  of  his  own  country,  but  from  Northumbrian  records.  The 
first  mention  of  him  is  in  an  acknowledgment  by  his  father  before  the  king's 
justices  and  an  assize  at  Newcastle-on-Tyne  in  1256.  The  elder  William 
stated  that  he  had  granted  to  his  son  William,  for  his  homage  and  service,  a 
carucate  ^  of  land  in  Warentham  (or  Warndon),  and  forty  acres  of  laud  in 
the  same  "  vill "  by  two  charters.  The  younger  William  was  then  under  age, 
and  John  de  Haulton  and  Joanna  of  Faudon  were  to  remain  as  guardians  over 
him  and  liis  land.-  This  guardianship  was  probably  required  in  consequence 
of  his  father's  absences  in  Scotland.  The  later  history  of  this  possession 
cannot  be  clearly  traced,  but  apparently  it  did  not  continue  in  the  hands  of 
Douglas.  It  is  not  referred  to  as  held  by  him,  when  a  list  was  made  up  in 
1296  of  lands  in  England  forfeited  by  Scotsmen. 

The  next  appearance  in  history  of  William  "  Le  Hardi "  or  The  Bold  is 
eleven  years  later,  at  the  attack  on  his  father's  house  of  Fawdon,  made  by 

*  A  canicate  of  land  was  identical  with  a       more  than  100  acres. 
"  hide  "  or  "  plough  gate  "  of  land— an   iu-  -  Calendar  of  Documents  relating  to  Scot- 

determinate  quantity,  but   equal  to  a  little      land,  ISSl,  vol.  i.  p.  .'?04. 


the  men  of  Tledesdale  in  12G7.  In  this  affair  the  young  Douglas  seems  to 
have  done  much  to  earn  his  sobriquet,  if  the  condition  in  which  he  was  left 
by  the  assailants  be  taken  as  a  proof  of  his  activity  in  defence  of  his  father 
and  mother.  As  stated  in  the  memoir  of  his  father,  the  latter  informed  the 
king  in  his  accusation  of  Umfraville,  that  his  son  William  was  womided  in  a 
deadly  manner  in  the  neck  with  a  sword,  so  that  the  assailants  all  but  cut 
off  his  head.^  Allowing  for  exaggeration  in  this  assertion,  natui'al  enough 
in  the  circumstances,  it  is  evident  that  the  young  man  was  severely  though 
not  fatally  wounded,  and  his  injuries  were  probably  incurred  in  a  brave 
resistance  to  the  marauders. 

Between  this  event  in  the  year  1267  and  the  year  1288,  when  Sir 
William  of  Douglas  is  recorded  as  in  possession  of  the  Douglas  estates,  little 
is  known  of  his  history.  In  the  interval  he  had  married  Elizabeth,  daughter 
of  Alexander,  High  Steward  of  Scotland,  and  sister  of  James,  the  High 
Steward  who  took  such  an  active  part  in  defence  of  Scotland's  independence; 
but  by  this  time  that  lady  was  dead.  Sir  WilKam  had  also  received  the 
honour  of  knighthood.  As  it  is  clear  from  his  succession  to  the  Douglas  estates 
before  1288,  that  Sir  William  recovered  from  the  wound  received  at  Fawdon, 
it  is  possible  he  may  have  been  one  of  the  many  knights  and  nobles  who, 
about  1270,  departed  for  the  Holy  Land.-  Godscroft  states  that  William, 
the  father  of  this  Sir  William  of  Douglas,  was  a  crusader.  The  improba- 
bility of  this  has  been  already  referred  to,  and  that  writer  may  have  trans- 
ferred some  tradition  to  this  effect  from  the  history  of  the  son  to  that  of  the 
father,  but  authentic  record  is  silent  on  this  point. 

Whether  Sir  William  "  Le  Hardi "  succeeded  in  the  Douglas  posses- 
sions to  his  brother  Hugh,  or   inherited  them  directly  from  his  father,  is 

^  The  words  of  the  recorded  plea  are  :"  Et  ita  quod  fere  amputavenint  caput  ejus.'' — 

Willelnium  tilium  ipsius  Willelmi  de  Duglas  [Placitorum  Abbreviatio,  p.  16G.J 
letaliter  vulueraverunt  in  coUo  quodam  gladio,  -  Fordun,  edition  1871,  vol.  i.  p.  304. 

VOL.  1.  K 

71  Snt   WILLIAM  OF  DOUGLAS,  ^' LE  HARDir 

uncertain.  The  first  act  recorded  of  his  ownership  was  his  recovery  of 
the  charters  of  his  family  from  the  custody  of  tlie  Abbot  of  Kelso,  who 
appears  to  have  been  intrusted  with  them  for  safe  keeping.^  Sir  William  of 
Douglas,  however,  desired  to  have  his  title-deeds  in  his  own  care,  and  on 
the  Uth  January  1289,  he  despatched  from  Glasgow  a  messenger  to  the 
Abbot  with  a  receipt  for  the  documents,  and  a  request  that  they  might  be 
given  to  the  bearer.  In  the  letter  of  acknowledgment  Douglas  designs 
himself  "  William  of  Duglas,  Lord  of  Duglas,"  being  thus  the  first  of  his 
family  who  assumed  that  baronial  style.  Tliis  recall  of  the  Douglas  charters 
to  their  owner's  custody  was,  in  one  \iew,  happily  timed,  as  in  the  wars  of 
independence  which  followed  a  few  years  later,  the  Abbey  of  Kelso  suffered 
severely.  Standing  as  it  did  in  an  exposed  situation  on  the  borders,  the 
fire  and  devastation  which  overtook  this  monastery  drove  its  monks  to  seek 
refuge  elsewhere,  and  deprived  them  even  of  the  necessaries  of  life.- 
Douglas  Castle  itself  suffered  once  and  again  in  the  same  wars,  and  the 
family  muniments  were  only  removed  from  one  place  of  jeopardy  to  another. 
To  the  frequent  occupation  of  Douglas  Castle  by  the  English,  and  at  least 
one  destruction  by  fire,  must  be  traced  the  loss  of  these  early  charters, 
with  all  the  information  they  could  have  given  as  to  the  first  generations 
of  the  House  of  Douglas. 

Some  time  previous  to  the  recall  of   his  family  charters,  Douglas  had 

1  The  practice  of  intrusting  family  muni-  was  among  the  parchments  found  in  the 
ments  to  the  care  of  the  more  important  castle  of  Edinburgh  in  1292,  and  ordered  by 
monastic  houses  was  not  uncommon  at  this  King  Edward  the  First  of  England  to  be 
time.  The  Abbey  of  Jedburgh  was  made  the  delivered  up  to  King  John  Baliol.  The  let- 
repository  of  certain  documents  deposited  by  ter  must  have  been  dated  before  1268.— 
John  Byset,  son  of  Sir  John  Byset.  A  letter  [Acts  of  the  ParUaments  of  Scotland,  vol  i. 
by  William  de  Fenton,  Andrew  de  Bosco,  and  p.  116.] 

David  de  Graham,  acknowledging  receipt  of  2  go  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews  states  m 

these  from  Mr.  William  Wyscard,  Archdeacon  a  charter  to  the  monks  after  the   war  was 

of  St.  Andrews,  and  Chancellor  to  the  King,  over.— Liber  de  Calchou,  vol.  i.  p.  249. 


signalised  himself  by  a  deed  highly  characteristic  of  his  race,  the  romantic 
abduction  and  marriage  of  an  English  heiress,  showing  that  if  he  were  bold 
in  war,  he  could  be  equally  bold  in  love.  It  was  during  the  confusion  into 
which  Scotland  was  thrown  shortly  after  the  death  of  King  Alexander  the 
Third  that  an  English  lady  wended  her  way  from  England  into  Scotland  and 
took  up  her  abode  with  a  kinswoman.  She  was  Eleanor,  daughter  of 
Matthew,  Lord  Lovain,  and  had  become  the  wife  of  William  de  Ferrers, 
Lord  of  Groby,  in  Leicestershire,  brother  of  the  last  Ferrers,  Earl  of  Derby, 
but  was  now  a  widow\^  After  her  husband's  death,  Eleanor  de  Ferrers  had 
sought  and  obtained  from  King  Edward  a  proportionable  dowry  out  of  her 
late  husband's  lands  in  England,  the  manors  of  Stebbing  and  Wodeham 
Ferrers,  in  the  county  of  Essex.  She  then,  according  to  the  usual  custom, 
gave  her  oath  that  she  would  not  marry  again  without  the  king's  consent. 
Her  late  husband  having  also  possessed  lands  in  Scotland,  in  the  counties 
of  Berwick,  Dumfries,  Ayr,  and  Fife,  with  part  of  the  barony  of  Tranent,  in 
the  county  of  Haddington,^  she  came  to  Scotland  to  secure  her  dowry  out  of 
these  lands  also.  While  waiting  the  settlement  of  her  claim  she  took  up 
her  residence  at  the  manor  of  Tranent,  with  Elena  de  Zouch,"  the  widow  of 
Alan  de  Zouch,  who  had  possessed  the  other  part  of  the  barony  of  Tranent.^ 
This  manor  was  one  day  suddenly  invested  by  an  armed  force,  led  by  the 

^  Dugdale's  Baronage,  vol.  i.  p.  2G7.  This 
lady,  Eleanor  de  Lovain,  was  the  second  wife 
of  Ferrers.  He  left  a  son  by  his  former  wife, 
who  succeeded  to  his  estates. 

2  Exchequer  Rolls  of  Scotland,  voL  i.  pp. 
36,  45;  Registrum  Magni  Sigilli,  p.  12; 
Robertson's  Index,  pp.  6,  7,  10,  13,  19, 
20,  22,  27. 

3  This  lady  was  one  of  the  three  daughters 
of  Roger  de  Quincy,  Constable  of  Scotland, 
by  Elena,  eldest  daughter  of  Alan,  Lord  of 

Galloway.  Her  father  died  in  1204,  leaving 
all  his  possessions  in  England  and  Scotland  to 
his  daughters.  Her  husband,  Alan  de  Zouch, 
died  in  1270.  Her  elder  sister,  Margaret, 
married  William  de  Ferrers,  Earl  of  Derby, 
and  the  other  sister  married  Alexander 
Comyn,  Earl  of  Buchau,  who,  by  virtue  of 
his  marriage  with  a  daughter  of  the  late 
Constable  of  Scotland,  became  himself  Con- 

^  Eegistrum  Magni  Sigilli,  p.  11. 


Baron  of  Douglas  and  John  Wishart,  a  prominent  borderer.^  They,  however, 
did  no  damage  to  the  manor,  but  contented  themselves  with  seizing  the 
English  lady  and  carrying  her  off  to  a  place  of  security  in  another  part  of  the 
country,  probably  one  of  Douglas's  own  strongholds,  where  she  was  detained. 
The  Baron  of  Douglas,  it  would  appear,  had  resolved  to  take  to  himself  a 
second  wife,  and  his  choice  fell  on  Eleanor  de  Ferrers.  His  motives  for  her 
abduction  are  nowhere  disclosed  and  need  not  here  be  discussed,  though  they 
may  be  imagined,  but  he  evidently  did  not  consult  the  lady's  own  wishes 
in  the  matter.  The  wooer,  however,  had  to  reckon  with  the  liege  lord  of 
the  heiress.  On  information  of  the  raid  reaching  the  ears  of  King  Edward 
of  England,  he  regarded  it  as  done  to  his  prejudice  and  contempt,  and  on 
28th  January  1289,  he  wrote  to  the  Sheriff  of  Northumberland  to  seize  all 
the  possessions  of  Douglas  in  his  jurisdiction,  and  to  retain  them  in  safe 
custody  until  he  received  further  commands.  He  was  also  directed  to  make 
"diligent,  wary,  and  circumspect  enquiry"  throughout  his  district  for  the 
offender,  and  if  he  found  him,  he  was  to  arrest  and  imprison  him.-  As 
this  mandate  did  not  result  in  the  capture  of  Douglas,  Edward,  on  the  27th 
of  March  following,  addressed  a  letter  to  William,  Bishop  of  St  Andrews, 
and  his  associates  in  the  regency  of  Scotland,  relating  his  complaint  against 
Douglas,  and  ordering  them  to  produce  that  baron  and  the  lady  before 
himself  and  his  council,  within  a  month  from  Easter.^  The  Eegents, 
however,  do  not  appear  to  have  taken  any  notice  of  this  demand,  as 
another  order  by  Edward,  dated  the  14th  of  April,  to  Richard  Knut,  the 
Sheriff    of    Northumberland,    directs     anew    the    seizure    of    the    posses- 

i  John  Wishart  was  a  border  baron,  and  in   1255. — [Robertson's  Early  Kings,  vol.  ii. 

one  of    considerable   influence   in   Scotland.  p.  66.] 

He    was    one    of    the    Regents    during  the  '-'  Fine  Roll  of  Edward  i.,  quoted  in  Steven - 

minority    of    King    Alexander     the     Third,  son's  Illustrations  of  Scottish  History,  p.  35. 
but     was    removed    from  that    office    with  ^  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  Scot- 

the  Comyn  and  others  of  the  National  party  land,  vol.  i.  y\\  S3-S5. 


sions  of  Bouglns  in  that  county,  and  also  of  the  possessions  of  all 
who  had  taken  part  with  him  in  the  forcible  abduction  of  Eleanor  do 
Ferrers.^  The  Sheriff  of  Northumberland  replied  that  he  had  seized  the 
lands  both  of  Douglas  and  Wishart  so  far  as  they  lay  in  his  bailiary,  but  as 
he  had  learned  that  the  latter  also  possessed  lands  in  Tynedale,  which  was 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  a  brother  sheriff,  Thomas  de  Normanville,  he  asked 
a  special  warrant  for  himself  to  seize  them  also.  His  information  was 
accepted,  but  the  duty  of  seizing  the  lands  was  imposed  upon  Xormanville  as 
the  proper  officer.  The  writ  to  this  Sheriff  is  important,  as  it  is  the  only  one 
which,  in  narrating  the  charge  against  Douglas  and  Wishart,  states  that,  in 
addition  to  the  abduction,  they  inflicted  other  enormities  upon  the  lady, 
(et  alia  enormia  ei  intulit).'- 

As  remarked,  the  Eegents  of  Scotland  do  not  seem  to  have  paid  any 
regard  to  Edward's  demand  for  the  surrender  of  Douglas  and  his  captive 
bride.  One  of  the  Eegents  was  James,  the  High  Steward  of  Scotland,  whose 
sister  had  been  Douglas's  first  wife.  Another  was  Alexander  Coniyn,  Earl 
of  Buchan,  a  brother-in-law  of  Elena  de  Zoucli,  from  whose  manor  Douglas 
had  carried  off  his  intended  bride,  and  he  may  be  supposed  to  have  had  no 
disfavour  to  the  deed.  At  the  same  time,  the  terms  of  Edward's  demand 
were  derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  Scotland  as  an  independent  kingdom, 
and  the  Scots  were  now  on  tlieir  guard  against  his  pretensions.  Accordingly, 
it  is  not  a  matter  of  surprise  that  Douglas  is  found  taking  part  with  his 
brother  barons  in  the  stining  events  then  going  forward ;  but  to  these 
reference  will  presently  be  made. 

About  a  year  after  his  adventure,  however,  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  1290, 
Douglas  fell  into  the  hands  of  King  Edward,  and  was  for  a  time  imprisoned 
in  the  castle  of  Leeds.  The  indictment  against  him  is  indefinite,  the  alleged 
cause  of  his  imprisonment  being  simply  "certain   transgressions   imputed 

^  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  i.  pp.  S3,  84.  -  Ihid.  pp.  85,  8(5. 



to  him."  But  on  four  English  bavons,  John  de  Hastiugs,  Nicholas  de  Segrave, 
William  de  Eye,  and  Eobert  Bardulf,  becoming  security  for  his  compearance 
before  the  king  within  fifteen  days  from  27th  January  1291/  he  was  released 
from  prison,-  and  the  Sheriff  of  Northumberland  was  ordered  to  cause  the 
lands,  etc.,  of  "William  Douglas  and  his  men,  with  their  revenues  from  the 
time  of  seizure,  to  be  replcdged  to  their  owners,  to  be  held  by  them  at  least 
till  the  date  above  mentioned,  when  the  king  and  his  council  intended  to 
dispose  of  the  case.^  The  lands  of  John  Wishart  were  restored  at  the  same 
time  on  similar  terms.* 

At  St.  Hilary's  term  1291,  Eleanor  de  Ferrers,  by  two  procurators,  put  in 
an  appearance  before  the  King  of  England  and  his  Court,  and  agreed  to  pay 
a  fine  of  one  hundred  pounds  for  her  offence  against  her  feudal  superior  in 
marrying  Douglas.  The  latter  was  personally  present,  and  pledged  all  his 
lands  and  holdings  for  the  payment  of  the  fine  in  four  instalments:  £25  on 
6th  May  1291,  the  same  amount  on  the  13th  October,  and  the  remainder  at 
the  same  terms  in  the  following  year.-^  But  the  fine  was  never  paid.  At 
the  first  mentioned  term  the  Sheriff  of  Northumberland  was  instructed  to 
levy  the  promised  sum  of  £25  upon  the  goods  and  chattels  of  William 
Douglas;^  and  when  in  the  year  1296  Edward  confiscated  lands  in  England 
possessed  by  Scotsmen,  he  seized  from  AVilliam  Douglas  and  his  wife 
Eleanor  de  Ferrers  their  two  manors  in  Essex  and  Hereford ;  Stebbinge,  the 
value  of  which  was  £53,  8s.  7-kl.,  and  Wodeham  Ferrers,  valued  at  £16,  2s.  6d. 
In  reference  to  the  manor  of  Stebbinge,  the  jurors  who  valued  it  state  that 

^  Steveuson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  i. 
pp.  154,  155.  He  makes  the  Quimlena  of 
St.  Hilary,  which  is  the  date  given  in  the 
original  writ,  fall  upon  the  6th  of  February, 
but  as  the  feast  is  on  the  13th  of  January, 
the  fifteenth  day  after  is  the  12  7th  of  the 
same  month. 

-  Mandate  by  King  Edward  the  First, 
dated  14th  May  1290,  >h\il. 

^  :SIandate,  dated  24tb  May  1290,  Ihkl. 

*  lh\d. 

•'  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  i. 
p.  214. 

6  Ibul.  p.  214,  note. 


on  the  Sabbath  (Saturday)  after  the  feast  of  St.  Luke  the  Evangelist  1295/ 
on  whicli  day  the  Sheriff  had  taken  the  manor  into  the  hands  of  the  king, 
there  were  found  twenty  quarters  of  wheat  which  the  Sheriff  had  formerly 
seized  in  terms  of  another  precept,  "  for  a  certain  debt  of  £100,  in  which 
William  Douglas  and  Eleanor  his  wife  were  bound  to  the  king  on  account  of 
trespass  in  her  marriage."- 

This  exploit  of  gallantry  on  the  part  of  the  baron  of  Douglas  was 
paralleled  at  a  later  period  by  the  similar  seizure  of  a  daughter  of  the  House 
of  Douglas  by  Alexander  Stewart,  son  of  the  Wolf  of  Badenoch,  who  captured 
Isabella  Douglas,  Lady  of  ^Mar,  in  her  Castle  of  Kildrummy,  and  obliged  her 
to  consent  to  share  the  honours  of  her  earldom  with  him. 

Sir  William  of  Douglas  may  be  said  to  have  brought  himself  suddenly  on 
the  stage  of  history  by  this  bold  stroke  for  a  wife.  It  took  place  evidently 
.shortly  prior  to  his  application  for  the  Douglas  charters,  and  the  attack  on 
Fawdon  was  a  mere  private  foray.  The  times  were  favourable  to  such 
episodes ;  but  the  country  liad  reached  a  crisis  in  her  history,  in  which  Sir 
William  Douglas  was  to  take  a  part  more  prominent  than  he  had  hitherto 
done.  King  Alexander  the  Third  had  perished  at  the  fatal  crag  of  King- 
horn,  leaving  as  his  successor  a  weakly  grandchild,  a  maiden  only  a  few 
years  old,  and  born  in  a  foreign  clime.  Under  a  regency  of  six  of  their  own 
number,  the  Scottish  nobility,  though  united  in  acknowledging  the  "  Maid  of 
Norway"  as  their  queen,  were  exhausting  themselves  and  the  country  in 
ambitious  strife  for  the  succession,^  should  death  prevent  the  young  queen 
from  ever  occupying  the  throne,  a  fear  too  soon  to  be  realised.  The  two 
principal  claimants  were  Bruce  and  Baliol,  and  to  one  or  the  other  of  the 
rivals  each  of  the  nobles  gave  his  support  in  accordance  with  his  own 
inclination  or  sense  of  duty.    In  this  unhappy  confusion  tlie  country  besought 

1  22d  October  1 295.  -  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  ii.  pp.  43,  44. 

^  Tytler's  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  72. 


the  interposition  of  Edward  the  First  of  England,  who  accepted  the  office  of 
arbiter  between  the  rival  parties  in  Scotland.  He  had  also  been  requested  by 
Haco,  King  of  Norway,  to  interpose ;  but  on  his  own  account  he  was 
negotiating  with  that  king  and  the  Pope  for  the  marriage  of  his  son,  Prince 
Edward,  with  the  Maid  of  Norway.^  For  the  time,  however,  Edward  kept  tliis 
matter  secret  from  the  Scots,  and  requested  the  Scottish  regents,  who,  by  the 
death  of  the  Earls  of  Fife  and  Buchan,  were  now  reduced  to  four  in  number, 
to  send  ambassadors  to  Salisbury,  there  to  arrange  with  his  o%vn  commissioners 
for  bringing  the  young  queen  of  Scotland  to  England.  The  treaty  of  Salisbury 
was  agreed  to  on  the  6th  of  November  1289,-  and  a  meeting  of  the  Scotch 
Parliament  was  held  on  the  14th  of  ]\Iarch  following  for  its  ratification.^ 
Before  this  meeting  took  place,  the  proposed  marriage  between  the  Maid  of 
Norway  and  the  son  of  Edward  the  First  was  made  known,  and  met  with  the 
warm  approbation  of  the  Scottish  people.  The  Scottish  Parliament  met  at 
Brighani  (Birgham),  and  despatched  to  Edward  a  letter  signed  by  all  present, 
cordially  assenting  to  the  proposed  union,  provided  certain  conditions 
respecting  their  national  independence  were  guaranteed.'* 

Sir  William  of  Douglas  was  at  this  time  lying  under  the  displeasure  of 
King  Edward  on  account  of  his  seizure  of  Eleanor  de  Ferrers,  and  orders  had 
been  issued  both  to  Edward's  own  officers  and  the  regents  of  Scotland  to  place 
him  under  arrest,  yet  he  was  present  at  Brigham  among  the  other  barons  of 
Scotland.  His  name  also  occurs  among  tliose  who  confirmed  the  treaty  of 
Salisbury,  as  well  as  among  the  senders  of  the  letter  to  the  English  king.  It 
is  an  amusing  illustration  of  the  vicissitudes  of  Border  life  in  feudal  times, 
that  while  Douglas  was  sitting  in  the  Council  at  Brigham,  carelessly  defiant 
of  all  Edward's  attempts  to  bring  him  to  bay,  Sir  Pilchard  Knut,  the  Sheriff 
of  Northumberland,  to  whom  the  English  king  had  intrusted  the  seizure  of 

1  Rymer'a  b'oedera,  vol.  i.  pp.  706,  721.  ^  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  i. 

-  Ihkh  p.  719.  p.  129.  *  Rymer's  Fcedera,  vol.  i.  p.  7:>0. 


Douglas,  was  himself  a  prisoner  in  the  castle  of  Eoxburgh.  Havino-  been 
intrusted  by  the  Queen  of  England  with  a  mission  respecting  the  dowry  of 
Isabella,  widow  of  John  de  Vescy,  he  had  applied  to  the  regents  of  Scotland 
for  a  safe-conduct  to  come  to  Roxburgh.  But,  instead  of  granting  the  safe- 
conduct,  the  regents  ordered  the  Sheriff  of  Eoxburgh,  "William  de  Soulis,  to 
apprehend  Knut,  and  bring  him  to  Edinburgh  to  answer  to  numerous 
complaints  about  his  high-handed  treatment  of  Scotsmen  in  violation  of  the 
customs  of  the  Marches.  On  coming  to  Eoxburgh,  the  English  Sheriff  was 
arrested  by  Alexander  de  Maxtone,  constable  of  the  castle,  on  the  13th  of 
January  1290,  and  lay  in  prison  until  the  20th  or  24th  of  IMarch  followinn- 
by  which  time  the  Council  at  Brighara  had  completed  its  work.  The  Sheriff 
of  Northumberland,  after  his  release,  appealed  to  Edward  for  justice,  estimating 
the  damage  to  the  king's  reputation  at  £10,000,  and  his  own  "loss  and 
disgrace  "  at  £2000.i 

A  few  weeks  later,  Douglas  himself  was  a  captive  in  Leeds,  but  as 
previously  narrated,  he  did  not  remain  there  long.  In  January  1291,  when, 
after  the  lapse  of  a  few  months,  he  and  his  wife  appeared  before  King 
Edward,  another  suit  M'as  instituted  against  Sir  William  of  Douglas.  One 
of  his  neighbours  in  Northumberland,  Geoffrey  de  Lucy,  complained  tliat 
Douglas  had  unjustly,  and  without  having  recourse  to  the  law,  dispossessed 
him  of  his  common  pasture  of  Fawdon,  described  as  two  hundred  acres  of 
arable  land  and  ten  acres  of  meadow  pertaining  to  Lucy's  freehold  in 
Aungerham.  A  writ  was  accordingly  issued  against  Douglas,  dated  8th  June 
1291,  in  which  the  Sheriff  of  Northumberland  was  directed,  on  Geoffrey  de 
Lucy  finding  security  for  the  prosecution  of  the  claim,  to  take  the  opinion  of 
a  jury  and  sujumon  parties  to  his  presence  at  Newcastle  for  the  2d  of  July 
for  judgment.  The  Sheriff  was  also  to  take  security  that  Douglas,  or  if 
he  could  not  be  found,  his  bailie  would  then  attend.^      But  at  the  assize 

1  Stevenson's  Historical  Docnments,  vol.  i.  pp.  125-12S,  19S  2  jn^i  p  <>_'^« 

VOL.1.  L 


the  jury  found  that  Lucy  had  never  been  seised  in  the  pasture  land  which 
he  daimed.^ 

In  June  of  the  same  year  a  royal  mandate,  in  which  Douglas  was 
interested,  was  issued  under  peculiar  circumstances.  A  few  years  previous, 
Duncan,  Earl  of  Fife,  one  of  the  six  regents  appointed  by  the  Communitas 
of  Scotland  after  the  death  of  King  Alexander  the  Tlurd,  had  for  some 
reason  been  foully  assassinated  by  the  Abernethies.  Fordun  and  Wyntowu  - 
agree  in  placing  the  date  of  the  mui'der  in  1288,  and  the  former  relates  that 
on  the  7th  April  1288  the  Earl  was  slain  at  Petpolloch  (Pitteloch)  by  Sir 
Patrick  de  Abernethy  and  Sir  "Walter  de  Percy,  with  the  counsel  and  consent 
of  Sir  William  of  Abernethy.  The  last  named,  by  prearrangement,  lay 
secretly  in  wait  with  a  large  party  on  a  different  road,  so  that  the  Earl  might 
not  escape  alive.  The  assassins  accomplished  their  purpose  and  fled,  but 
Andrew  of  Moray  immediately  started  in  pursuit,  and  succeeded  in  capturing 
in  Colbanistown  (Covington),  in  Clydesdale,  two  of  the  principal  actors,  Percy 
and  Sir  "William  de  Abernethy.  The  former,  with  two  esquires,  Moray  at 
once  put  to  death,  the  latter  he  handed  over  to  Sir  William  Douglas  to  be 
imprisoned  for  life  in  the  castle  of  Douglas.  Sir  Patrick  de  Abernethy 
escaped  to  France  and  died  there.^ 

Both  Fordun  and  Wyntown  have  erred  respecting  the  name  of  the  Aber- 
nethy placed  in  the  custody  of  Douglas  at  Douglas  Castle,  for,  as  Lord  Saltoun 
remarks,  documents  wdiich  these  writers  had  no  opportunities  of  consulting 
show, "  that  though  Sir  William  may  have  been  a  party  to  the  Earl's  assassina- 
tion, and  may  have  been  punished  for  it,  his  elder  brother,  Sir  Hugh  de  Aber- 
nethy, was  the  person  imprisoned  in  Douglas  Castle  on  that  account,  and  as 
the  head  of  tlie  family  he  was  doubtless  the  chief  instigator  of  the  outrage."  ^ 

^  Placitorum  Abbreviatio,  pp.  227,  285.  ^  Fordun's  Annalia,   edition   187 1,  vol.    i. 

-  Wyntown's  Cronykil  (Macpherson's  edi-       p.  320. 
tion),  vol.  ii.  pp.  71,  72.  *  The  Frasers  of  Pliilorth,  vol.  ii.  p.  20. 



This  Sir  Hugh  de  Abernethy  was  noue  other  than  Douglas's  own  rehitixe, 
the  brother  of  ^rarjorv,  his  sister-in-law.  But  this  did  not  hinder  the  baron 
of  Douglas  from  sharing  in  the  strong  feeling  of  condemnation  at  the  cruel 
act  of  the  Abernethies,  or  from  being  the  instrument  to  inflict  punishment. 
Abernethy  lay  imprisoned  in  Douglas  Castle  for  several  years.  On  28th 
June  1291,  the  King  of  England,  who  was  then  at  Berwick-on-Tweed,  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  Alan,  Bishop  of  Caithness,  Chancellor  of  Scotland  (an 
Englishman),  directing  him  to  charge  Douglas  to  transfer  Sir  Hugh  de 
Abernethy  from  his  place  of  confinement  to  one  of  the  king's  own  prisons.^ 
No  action  appears  to  have  followed  on  this  order,  as  Fordun  and  Wyntriwn 
both  relate  that  Abernethy  died  during  his  captivity  in  Douglas  Castle. 
This  must  have  been  before  1293,  as  in  the  beginning  of  that  year,  his  son 
Alexander,  then  in  his  nonage,  with  the  Abernethy  estates,  were  placed  under 
the  charge  of  Alexander  de  Menteith,  elder  son  of  Walter  Stewart,  fifth  Earl 
of  Menteith.  Sir  Hugh's  widow  also,  Mary,  daughter  of  John  Comyn  of 
Badenoch,  one  of  the  regents,  was  at  that  time  married  to  Malise  Earl  of 

The  somewhat  peremptory  tone  of  Edward's  mandate,  and  the  right  of 
sovereignty  which  it  assumes,  are  accounted  for  by  the  peculiar  circumstances 
of  Scotland  at  this  juncture.  King  Edward  the  First  had  at  last  attained,  for 
a  time  at  least,  his  long-cherished  desire  of  annexing  Scotland  as  a  province 
of  England.  The  unhappy  demise  of  the  young  Queen  of  Scotland  on  her 
way  from  Xorway  to  England,  where,  by  the  Treaty  of  Salisbury,  she  was  to 
remain  until  her  own  country  had  become  sufticiently  quiet  to  receive  her, 
revived  with  increased  force  the  rivalries  among  the  Scottish  nobles  with 
regard  to  the  succession  to  the  throne.  The  necessity  for  a  prudent  arbiter 
had  become  greater  than  before,  and  as  the  distracted  country  could  only,  in 
the  circumstances,  apply  to  Edward,  their  plight  was  indeed  evil.     Aware  of 

*  Vol.  iv.  of  this  work,  pp.  1,  2.  -  Acts  of  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  pp.  44r).  \A~. 



his  advantage  he  boldly  made  his  own  terms  with  the  competitors,  and 
threatened  war  if  opposition  was  intended.  Though  tliey  at  first  refused,  the 
Scots  well  knew  that  in  their  weak  and  divided  state  resistance  was  hopeless 
and  impossible,  and  they  consented  to  acknowledge  Edward  as  Lord  Para- 
mount of  Scotland.  This  acknowledgment  took  place  at  Norham  on  the  2d 
of  June  1291,  and  was  followed  by  delivery  of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland  by 
the  regents  into  the  hands  of  Edward.  Oaths  of  homage  and  protestations  of 
fealty  by  the  nobles  and  barons  were  tendered,  and  Sir  William  of  Douglas 
is  mentioned  as  paying  homage,  on  the  5th  of  July,  to  Edward,  in  presence  of 
Anthony,  Bishop  of  Durham,  Alan,  Bishop  of  Caithness,  and  many  others. 
The  ceremony  took  place  in  the  chapel  of  the  manor  of  Sir  Walter  de 
Lindsay,  at  Thurston  in  East  Lothian,  where  the  Kmg  of  England  was  being 
entertained,  evidently  on  his  way  from  Berwick-on-Tweed  to  Edinburgh.^ 

It  seems  probable  that  Douglas  was  on  his  way  to  attend  the  Court  at 
Newcastle  to  which  he  had  been  summoned  for  the  2d  of  July  in  the  affair  of 
Lucy's  complaint  against  him.  The  verdict  of  the  jury  in  that  case  has 
been  stated,  and  nothing  more  occurs  respecting  it.  Douglas,  however,  appears 
at  this  time  to  have  rendered  himself  a  special  mark  for  Edward's  writs,  as 
another,  and  a  most  peremptory  mandate  was  issued  against  him  by  the  King 
from  Berwick  on  tlie  3d  of  July,  ordering  his  compearance  at  that  place  on 
the  2d  of  August  next,  to  answer  for  contempt  of  a  former  writ,  and  for 
alleged  injuries  to  the  Abbot  and  Convent  of  Melrose.  Meanwhile  he  was 
strictly  inhibited  from  molesting  them  or  their  men,  or  injuring  their  goods 
and  chattels.- 

The  documents  in  this  case  show  that  from  time  immemorial  the  monks 
of  Melrose  had  been  accustomed  to    use  a  road  (via  communis)  stretchin'f 

'  Eflward  was  at  Berwick   oa  the   4th  of  July,   and   at   Edinburgh  on  the  8th  of   the 
same  month. — [Rotuli  Scotise,  vol.  i.  p.  2  ;   Rymer's  Fadera,  vol.  i.  p.  772.] 
-  Vol.  iv.  of  thia  work,  pp.  2,  3. 



through  the  lieart  of  the  Douglas  valley  from  the  inarches  of  the  land  of 
Tordones,  belonging  to   the  Abbey,  to  the  church   of  Douglas.     This   road 
passed  in  front  of   the  park  of  Douglas    Castle,   then   down  the  valley  to 
Uddington  (Huddigystoun),  thence  to  "  le  Rayerd"  (Redshaw  ?),  and  so  on 
to  the  march  of  the  barony  of  Wiston.     Tlie  monks  complained  that  when 
they  used  this  road  and  passed  along  in   front  of  his  castle,  the  baron  of 
Douglas   hindered    and    frightened    them,    and    these    complaints   were,   it 
would  seem,  carried  by  the  Abbot  to  King  Edward.     He,  in  the  previous 
year,  at  the  request  of  his  own  son,  had  granted  to  the  monks  of  Melrose 
exemption  from  distraint  for  debts  not  incurred  by  themselves  ;^  and  only 
a  few  days  prior  to  issuing  the  writ  summoning  Douglas  on  account   of 
their  complaint,  had  signed  ample  letters  of  protection  in  their  favour  to 
endure  for  the  space  of  one  year.'^     Douglas,  however,  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  overawed  by  the  legal  documents  directed  against  him.     He  evidently 
continued  his  molestations  of  the  monks  at  his  pleasure,  even  in  spite  of  a 
judicial  decision  by  the  regents  and  Brian  Fitz  Alan,  who,  during  the  pending 
of  the  Succession  Controversy,  was  conjoined  with  tliem  in  the  government 
of  Scotland.     These  high-handed  acts  of  Douglas  went  on  at  least  till  1294, 
when,  in  a  meeting  of  Council  at  Roxburgh  on  the  13th  of  Aprii,  the  matter 
came  before  John  BaHol,  who  was  now  on  the  Scottisli  throne.     He  issued 
to  Geoffrey  de  Moubray,  Justiciar  of  Lothian,  a  letter  narrating  all   the 
cii-cumstances,  and  ordered  him  to  give  sasine  of  this  disputed  road  of  new  to 
the  Abbot  and  Convent  of  Melrose.     He  was  also  to  seize  and  summon 
before  the  king  and  Council  any  whom  he  found  disturbing  the  holy  men  in 
their  right,  to  answer  for  tlieir  contempt,  and  to  bind  themselves  to  act  in 
accordance  with  justice.  3 

Sir  William  of  Douglas  fell  under  the  displeasure  of  Edward  in  the  end 

»  Stevenson'3  Historical  Documents,  vol.  i.  ^  Rotuli  Scotia?,  vol.  i.  p.  1. 

'  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  pp.  8,  9. 



of  the  year  1291,  or  beginning  of  the  following  year,  and  was  deprived  of  his 
estates  in  Lanarkshire.  On  20th  Januaiy  1292  the  English  king  presented 
Master  Eustace  de  Bikerton  to  the  church  of  Douglas,  the  patronage  of  which 
had  fallen  in  his  hands  through  the  forfeiture  of  the  lands  of  Sir  William 
of  Douglas,  "for  certain  transgressions  committed  by  him;"  and  the  Bishop 
of  Glasgow,  in  whose  diocese  the  church  of  Douglas  lay,  was  instructed  to 
see  the  letters  of  presentation  given  effect  to.^ 

Douglas  apparently  did  not  favour  the  claims  of  Baliol  to  the  throne  of 
Scotland.  He  seems  to  have  held  aloof  from  all  the  proceedings  connected 
with  the  coronation,  and,  indeed,  during  the  dependence  of  the  claims,  he 
is  not  known  to  have  sided  with  any  of  the  competitors.  He  did  not  attend 
Baliol's  first  Parliament  held  at  Scone  on  10th  February  1293,  and  for 
his  neglect  of  the  summons  to  do  so  he  was  declared  a  defaulter,  along  with 
other  three  magnates,  Eobert  Bruce,  Earl  of  Carrick,  Angus,  son  of  Donald 
of  the  Isles,-  and  John,  Earl  of  Caithness.  "What  should  be  done  to  compel 
their  submission  was  discussed  in  the  Council,  and  it  was  decided  again 
to  summon  the  delinquents  to  appear  before  King  John  on  the  second 
Monday  after  Easter  (6th  April  1293),  wherever  the  king  might  be  at  that 
time  within  Scotland,  to  perform  homage,  and  also  to  receive  sentence  for 
their  absence  from  Parliament  and  disregard  of  the  first  summons.  The 
Sheriffs  of  the  respective  districts  were  accordingly  commanded  to  take  with 
them  six  free  men  of  the  three  nearest  baronies,  and  summon  the  defaulting 
barons  in  terms  of  the  Council's  decision.^ 

Whether  Douglas  obeyed  this  last  summons  and  performed  homage  to 
Baliol  does  not  appear,  but  he  was  present  at  King  John's  second  Parliament, 
held  at  Stirling  on  the  3d  of  1293.     It  remains  a  question,  liowever, 

1  RotiiU  Scotiae,  vol.  i.  p.  7. 

^  Misprinted  "  Donald,  son  of  Angus,"  in  the  Record  of  the  Acts  of  Parliament. 

^  Acts  of  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  447  ;   Pvymer's  Fn-dera,  vol.  i.  p.  787. 


as  to  the  position  in  which  he  was  present,  whether  as  a  baron  of  the  realm, 
or  only  as  summoned  to  answer  to  two  grave  charges  against  him. 

One  of  these  charges  was  alleged  deforcement  of  the  king's  officers.  The 
complaint  narrates  that  when  the  king's  bailies  for  Lanarkshire,  on  a  precept 
of  the  Justiciars  at  Douglas,  came  to  give  sasine  to  the  mother  of  Sir 
William  in  certain  tenements  which  she  had  recovered  in  an  action  against 
her  son  before  the  Justiciars,  and  also  to  levy  the  costs,  Douglas  had  seized 
the  bailies,  and  detained  them  against  their  will  a  night  and  a  day  in  his 
castle,  but  afterwards  suffered  them  to  depart ;  whereupon  the  bailies  imme- 
diately made  suit  at  the  castle  of  Lanark  for  redress,  and  the  king  himself 
regarded  the  deed  as  done  in  despite  to  him,  and  tending  to  his  detriment. 
•  Sir  William  denied  having  done  despite  to  the  king's  dignity,  and 
declared  the  truth  of  the  matter  to  be  that  the  bailies  came  to  his  castle  to 
give  the  sasine  foresaid,  and  uplift  the  140  merks  of  damages  imposed  by 
the  Justiciars.  He  then  informed  them  that  they  were  doing  him  wrong, 
because  they  could  not  levy  such  a  sum  so  hastily,  and  they  ought,  there- 
fore, to  make  some  delay ;  and  so  they  did,  he  added,  against  their  will. 
This  explanation,  as  may  be  expected,  did  not  satisfy  the  Court,  and 
Douglas  was  sentenced  to  imprisonment  during  the  pleasure  of  the  king. 

A  second  complaint  was  then  made  by  Baliol  himself,  who  charged 
Douglas  with  taking  three  of  his  men,  before  he  became  king,  and  imprisoning 
them  in  the  castle  of  Douglas.  This  was  done,  the  king  asserted,  against 
surety  and  pledge,  and  in  contravention  of  the  laws  of  the  kingdom,  and  in 
the  end  one  of  the  men  died  in  prison,  another  was  beheaded,  while  the 
tliird  escaped.  The  king  assessed  his  loss  at  one  thousand  pounds.  To  this 
charge  Douglas  did  not  attempt  a  denial,  but  placed  himself  at  the  mercy  of 
the  king.^  He  was  accordingly  placed  in  ward.  How  long  he  remained  in 
prison  is  not  known,  but  it  was  probably  for  no  great  length  of  time.     His 

^  Acts  of  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  448  ;  Rymer's  F(^dera,  vol.  i.  p.  791. 


stay  there  obviated  his  attendance  on  feudal  business  connected  with  his 
possessions  in  the  county  of  Essex  in  England,  and  formed  his  excuse  with 
Edward  for  the  remission  of  a  fine  of  twenty  pounds,  in  which  he  was 
mulcted  for  non-attendance.  Edward's  mandate  cancellincr  the  fine  is  dated 
3d  October  1293,  and  the  terms  of  it  suggest  that  by  that  time  Douglas  was 
again  frce.^ 

Two  years  later,  goaded  to  fury  by  the  tyranny  and  insolence  of  their 
oppressor,  the  Scottish  nobles  had  induced  Baliol  to  renounce  his  vows  of 
submission  to  King  Edward,  and  to  assert  "the  independence  of  his  throne. 
Baliol  did  so,  and  then  began  that  long  struggle  which  only  terminated, 
about  twenty  years  later,  at  Bannockburn.  Sir  William  Douglas  took 
a  decided  part  against  the  English  king,  although  from  the  force  of  circum- 
stances he  was  not  always  consistent  any  more  than  the  majority  of  his 
fellow-patriots.  That  virtue  can  be  accorded  only  to  a  veiy  few  of  the 
Scottish  barons  during  the  war  of  independence. 

The  Scots  had,  in  October  1295,  entered  into  a  treaty  with  France  and 
Norway  against  England,-  and  evidently  relying  upon  this  they  resolved  to 
risk  a  contest  with  Edward.  The  town  of  Berwick-upon-Tweed,  the  great 
outpost  of  Scotland  on  the  east,  was  garrisoned  by  the  nobles  and  freeholders, 
with  other  valiant  men  of  Fife,  while  Sir  "William  of  Douglas  was  made 
commander  of  the  castle.^  Here  the  Scots  fortified  themselves  and  awaited 
the  English  attack.  Meanwhile  Edward,  exasperated  against  the  Scots,  had 
recourse  to  his  usual  tactics  of  dividiug  them  against  themselves.  He  treated 
Baliol  as  no  longer  king  of  Scotland,  and  gained  over  Bruce  to  act  with  him 
against  his  own  countrymen,  promising  to  place  him  on  the  Scottish  throne 
instead  of  Baliol.  He  then  ordered  the  sale  of  the  goods  and  chattels  on  all 
the  estates  of  Scotsmen  in  England,  and  the  proceeds  to  be  paid  into  his 

*  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  i.  -^  Fordun,    Annalia.    edition    1871,   vol.    i. 

p.  403.  -  Ibnl.  vol.  ii.  p.  S.         p.  .323. 


treasury ;  ^  gave  directions  for  the  collection  of  a  large  fleet  to  co-operate 
with  the  army  which  he  was  levying/  and  before  the  end  of  IMarch  he  was 
ready  for  the  war. 

The  Scottish  historians  relate  that  some  time  previous  to  Edward's 
appearing  in  the  field,  a  large  English  fleet  had  entered  the  Tweed,  and 
had  been  repulsed  by  the  garrison  with  heavy  loss,  no  fewer  than  eighteen 
ships,  full  of  armed  men,  being  burnt,  and  their  crews  slain."  The  tidings 
of  this,  adds  Wyntown,  roused  Edward  to  great  fury. 

"  All  breme  he  belyd  into  berth, 
And  wrythyd  all  in  wedand  werth, 
Alsii  kobbyd  in  his  crope, 
As  he  had  ettyn  ane  Attyrcope;" 

and  he  then  proceeds  to  tell  of  his  raising  an  army  to  subdue  Scotland.^  The 
English  historians,  however,  say  nothing  about  this  defeat,  and  as  the  encounter 
bears  a  striking  similarity  to  what  took  place  while  Edward  himself  lay  before 
Berwick,  with  the  exception  of  the  number  of  vessels  destroyed,  it  is  possible 
that  the  Scottish  historians  have  in  tliis  case  made  a  mistake. 

Edward  crossed  the  Tweed,  below  Coldstream,  with  his  army  on  the  2Sth 
of  March  1296,  and  was  joined  by  Anthony  Beck,  the  Bishop  of  Durham,  with 
a  large  contingent  who  had  crossed  at  Norham,  lower  down  the  river.  His  army 
consisted  of  five  thousand  horse  and  thirty  thousand  footmen,^  at  the  head  of 
whom  he  approached  Berwick,  and  demanded  its  surrender.  He  awaited  for 
a  full  day  the  reply  of  the  townsmen,  and,  on  receiving  a  refusal,  withdrew 
towards  Coldstream  and  encamped  there.  His  naval  squadron  lay  out  at  sea 
opposite  Berwick,  and  the  commanders,  on  the  morning  of  the  30th,  seeing  in 
the  distance  the  land  forces  drawn  up  ready  for  battle,  imagined  that  Edward 

1  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  ii.  ^  Wyntown's  Cronykil,  B.  viii.  c.  xi. 

I>.  22.                                       2  j},y  p  23.  5  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  voL  ii. 

^  Fordun's  Annalia,  edit.  1871,  vol.  i.  \k  .S24.  p.  2i). 

VOL.  I.  M 


was  about  to  commence  the  assault.  In  order  to  render  aid,  they,  with  their 
ships,  entered  the  river.  The  foremost  vessel  ran  aground,  and  was  speedily- 
surrounded  by  the  Scots,  who,  after  a  stubborn  contest,  killed  the  crew  and 
set  the  ship  on  fire.  Two  or  three  other  ships  shared  a  similar  fate,  but  their 
crews  escaped  in  their  boats,  while  the  rest  of  the  fleet  succeeded  in  retiring 
out  of  the  river  in  safety.^ 

Such  a  scene  enacted  in  full  view  of  the  English  king  had  the  effect  of 
hastening  his  attack  upon  the  city,  to  make  himself  master  of  which  he  had 
recourse  to  stratagem.  Knowing  that  the  Scots  were  in  daily  expectation  of 
reinforcements,  he  substituted  Scottish  banners  for  his  own  standards,  and 
made  a  rapid  descent  upon  the  city.  The  Scots  within  the  walls  were  quite 
deceived,  and  threw  open  the  gates  with  joy  and  blitheness  to  welcome  tlieir 
supposed  comrades.  But  no  sooner  had  the  gates  been  gained  and  secured 
than  the  mistake  was  discovered,  all  too  late  to  avert  the  terrible  and 
indiscriminate  slaughter  wdiich  nuw  commenced.  At  their  entrance,  says 
Hemingburgh,  the  astonished  Scots  stood  stupefied,  as  men  beside  themselves, 
not  one  lifting  a  sword  or  aiming  a  shaft.-  Tliey  were  then  overborne  by  a 
sudden  rush.  For  two  days,  say  the  Scotch  historians,  rivers  of  gore  flowed 
from  the  bodies  of  the  slain,  no  fewer  than  seven  thousand  five  hundred  men, 
women,  and  children  having  perished  ^  (Hemingburgh  places  the  number  at 
over  eight  thousand),  and  the  magnanimous,  valiant,  and  warlike  nobles  of 
Fife  were  utterly  destroyed.* 

"  Leryd  and  Lawde,  Xwne  and  Frere, 
All  wes  slayne  wyth  that  powere  : 
Of  alkyn  state,  of  alkyn  age, 
Thai  sparyd  nowthir  carl  nd  page  : 
Bdth  awld  and  yhuwng,  men  and  wywys, 
And  sowkand  bamys  tynt  thare  lyvys." 

^  Chronicon  Walter!  de  Hemingburgh,  vol.  '  Forduns  Annalia,  edit.  1871,  vol.  i.  p.  324. 

iL  pp.  9G-98.  2  JJyl^l  p   93.  ^  Fordun,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  100. 


Thus  Wyntown  ;  and  he  adds  other  horrors  of  the  massacre  which  canuot 

be  repeated  here.   Tlie  wickedness  of  the  deed  is  intensified,  in  the  historian's 

eyes,  by  its  being  done  on  Good-Friday,  but  he  comforts  himself  with  the 

following  reflection  concerning  Edward  and  liis  victims: — 

"  The  sawlys,  that  he  gert  slay  down  thare 
He  send,  quhare  his  sawle  nevyrmare 
Wes  lyk  to  come,  that  is  the  Blys 
Quhare  alkyn  joy  ay  lestand  is."^ 

The  English  historians  boast  that  the  city  was  taken  with  the  loss  to  them 
of  only  a  single  knight,  a  brother  of  the  Earl  of  Cornwall,  whose  death  is 
connected  with  a  deed  of  unparalleled  fidelity  and  devotion. 

In  Berwick,  the  Elemings,  who  at  this  time  had  an  extensive  commercial 
interest  in  Scotland,  possessed  a  strong  builiiing,  called  the  Aula  Eubea  or  Eed 
Hall,  which,  by  their  charter,  they  were  bound  to  defend  against  the  King  of 
England  to  the  last  extremity.  Thirty  Flemings  were  in  the  lied  Hall  when 
the  city  of  Berwick  was  taken,  and  they  courageously  held  out  against  all 
attempts  to  take  it  until  the  evening,  when  the  English  soldiers  set  the 
building  on  fire,  and  its  brave  defenders  perished  with  it.  It  was  a  dart  shot 
from  this  building  which  pierced  the  eye  of  the  English  knight  while  charging 
through  the  town  at  the  head  of  his  soldiers.- 

After  the  EngHsh  had  acquired  complete  hold  of  Berwick,  the  garrison 
of  the  castle,  numbering  about  two  hundred,  warned  by  the  fate  of  the 
townsmen,  capitulated  on  condition  of  being  granted  safety  of  Life  and  limb, 
and  the  security  of  their  lands  and  other  possessions.  This  was  conceded, 
and  they  were  allowed  to  depart  after  first  swearing  with  uplifted  hands  that 
they  would  never  bear  arms  against  Edward  or  the  kingdom  of  England. 
From  these  conditions,  however,  an  exemption  was  made  in  the  case  ot 
Douglas,  who  was  not  liberated  on  parole,  but  was  kept  in  close  ward. 

^  Wyntowu  3  Cronykil,  B.  vni.  c.  xi. 

-  Chronicou  Walteri  de  Hemiugbargh,  vol.  ii.  i>.  98. 


Kiug  Edward  took  up  his  quarters  in  the  castle  of  Berwick  on  the 
night  of  its  surrender,  and  remained  in  the  town  for  nearly  a  month,  until  the 
concentration  of  the  Scots  at  Dunbar  called  him  to  action.  A  decisive  defeat 
was  there  inflicted  upon  the  Scots,  many  being  slain,  and  a  large  number  of 
prisoners  taken.  Tiie  King  of  England  then  set  out  on  a  tour  of  conquest, 
and  proceeding  by  Roxburgh  and  Jedburgh  he  came  to  Edinburgh,  and  laid 
siege  to  the  castle,  which  surrendered  after  eight  days.^  He  successfully 
accomplished  a  victorious  progress  as  far  as  Elgin,  and  returned  to  Berwick 
towards  the  end  of  August.- 

The  imprisonment  of  Douglas  did  not  last  all  this  time,  as  we  find  him 
at  Edinburgh  on  the  10th  of  June  swearing  allegiance  to  King  Edward,  in 
presence  of  the  Bishop  of  Durham  and  various  noblemen.  The  record  of  the 
proceedings  describes  him  in  the  usual  form  as  having  come  voluntarily  to 
the  faith  of  the  English  king,  uncompelled  by  force  or  fear.  In  the  royal 
presence  he  renounced  whatever  connection  he  had  with  any  treaties  made 
with  Philip,  Kiug  of  France,  against  the  King  of  England  so  far  as  they  could 
affect  him  or  his,  and  touching  and  kissing  the  gospels,  he  gave  oath  of 
fealty  to  King  Edward  as  his  sovereign,  and  appended  his  seal  to  the  usual 
form  of  letters-patent  required  from  the  Scots,  that  they  would  faithfully 
serve  Edward  against  all  his  enemies,  upon  pain  of  body  and  goods.^  He 
again  performed  the  same  homage  at  Berwick  with  the  rest  of  his  countrj-- 
men  in  a  Parliament  held  there  by  Edward,  on  28th  August  1296,  before 
quitting  Scotland,  and  Douglas  is  simply  mentioned  among  a  host  of  others 
as  "William  of  Douglas,  of  the  county  of  Lanark*     The  seal  appended  by 

^  Chronicon  Walter!  cle  Hemingburgh,  vol.  homage  to  Edward  on  that  day,  and  took  the 

ii.  p.  105.  oath  of  fealty,  was  William,  son  of  Andrew 

2  Ragman  Rolls,  pp.  177-180.  de    Douglas,    of   the    county  of   Linlithgow 

3  Ibid.  pp.  6-4,  65.  [Ihld.  p.    154],   evidently   the   cousin   of   Sir 
*  Ih'ul.  p.  125.     Amongst  others  who  paid  William. 


Douglas  to  his  deed  of  homage  has  been  ah-eady  referred  to,  and  a  repre- 
sentation of  it  given.^ 

At  the  time  of  his  capture  and  imprisonment  in  Berwick  the  possessions 
of  Doughis  in  Scotland  shared  the  fate  of  his  English  lands,  and  were 
confiscated  by  Edward.  It  has  been  already  noticed  that  all  the  possessions 
of  Scotsmen  in  England  had  been  seized  by  orders  of  Edward  before  the 
commencement  of  the  war,  and  among  these  were  Douglas's  two  manors  in 
Essex,  Stebbing  and  Wodeham  Ferrers,  and  his  manor  of  Fawdon  in 
Northumberland.-  These  English  possessions  do  not  appear  ever  to  have 
been  regained  by  Sir  William  of  Douglas,  but  on  the  30th  of  August  an  order 
was  issued  by  King  Edward  for  restoring  his  territories  in  Scotland.  These 
must  have  been  extensive,  as  the  Sheriffs  of  no  fewer  than  six  counties,  Fife, 
Dumfries,  Wigton,  Berwick,  Ayr,  and  Edinburgh,  were  directed  to  restore  to 
Sir  William  Douglas  the  lands  and  others  belonging  to  him  seized  within 
their  bounds,  with  all  their  revenues,  deducting  expenses  and  the  taxes 
due  to  the  king.^ 

Scarcely  had  the  English  king  got  back  to  Westminster  when  tlie  old 
spirit  of  independence  broke  out  among  the  Scottish  peasantry,  and  small 
parties  in  many  parts  of  the  country  made  it  their  business  to  harass  and 
spoil  the  English  ganisons  which  were  scattered  over  the  land.  In  these 
maraudings  the  Scottish  nobles  and  gentry  had  at  least  no  direct  hand,  as 
they  were  bound  to  Edward's  yoke  in  several  ways.  Not  to  speak  of  their 
oaths  of  fealty,  though  in  a  crisis  these  were  but  little  accounted  of,  a  con- 
siderable number  were  yet  in  English  prisons,  whither  they  had  been  sent 
after  the  disastrous  battle   of  Dunbar.     If  liberated,  they  had  either  left 

^  Page  17,  ant'-a.  Softlawe  was  at  this  time  parson  of  Douglas, 

^  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  ii.  and  on  Lis  rendering  homage,  his  lauds  were 

pp.  43,  44,  46,  49.  also  ordered  to  be  restored. — [Rotuli  Scotiii-, 

^  Vol.  iv.  of  this   work,   p.   3.     Aymer  de  vol.  i.  p.  25  ;  Eagnian  Rolls,  p.  150.] 


impoi-tant  hostages  in  their  place,  whose  safety  must  be  imperilled  by  auy 
hostile  action  on  their  part,  and  for  which  Edward  was  sure  to  exact  fierce 
retribution  ;  or  else  they  were  engaged  to  serve  the  English  king  in  Flanders. 
The  peasantry  and  smaller  landed  gentry  had  less  to  fear,  and  consequently 
were  not  deterred  by  the  same  considerations.  Hence,  accordini^  to  Kin^^ 
Edward's  complaint,  homicides,  depredations,  and  other  enormities,  were  of 
daily  occurrence ;  and,  to  secure  the  suppression  of  these  rebellions,  he  gave 
his  English  Treasurer  of  Scotland,  Hugh  de  Cressingham,  full  power  to 
exhaust  the  contents  of  the  Scottish  Exchequer.^ 

Edward  now  sought  to  use  the  Scottish  nobility  and  barons  in  his  military 
service,  in  the  same  way  as  he  did  those  of  his  own  realm.  He  summoned 
them  to  attend  him  in  an  expedition  into  Elanders.  On  the  24th  of  ^lay 
1297,  letters  were  directed  from  Portsmouth  to  Sir  William  of  Douglas,  and 
upwards  of  fifty  Scottish  magnates,  principally  those  south  of  the  Firth  of 
Forth.  The  letters  do  not  state  definitely  the  object  of  the  summons,  but 
Cressingham  and  Osbert  de  Spaldingtone  were  verbally  to  intimate  the  king's 
pleasure  to  those  summoned.-  The  expedition  was  to  meet  on  the  7th  of 
July,  and  the  muster  was  to  take  place  at  London.^  But  Douglas  had  other 
work  in  hand,  and  the  day  on  which,  had  he  obeyed  the  summons,  he  should 
have  been  at  London,  found  him  quite  otherwise  employed. 

"VVIiile  King  Edward  was  thus  moulding  Scotch  affairs  to  his  will,  as  he 
believed,  William  Wallace  had  begun  his  brilliant  career  as  the  deliverer  of 
his  countr}'.  Driven  by  English  oppression  into  outlawry,  he  collected  around 
him  the  kindred  spirits  throughout  the  west  country,  and  commenced  an  open 
warfare  with  the  English  garrisons.  Wherever  he  attacked  he  was  almost 
always  successful,  and  his  countrymen  began  to  be  inspired  with  new  hopes. 
Douglas  was  amongst  the  first  of  the  barons  to  proceed  to  the  assistance  of 

'  Rotiili  Scotire,  vol.  I  p.  42.  ^  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  ii.  p.  1G7. 

^  Pal  grave's  Parliamentary  Writs,  vol.  i.  p.  284. 


the  patriot  leader,  and,  according  to  Blind  Harry  the  minstrel,  he  did  so  by  a 
little  exploit  of  his  own,  which,  however,  but  for  Wallace's  timely  interven- 
tion, would  probably  have  ended  in  disaster. 

The  castle  of  Sanquhar  was  at  this  time  in  the  possession  of  an  English 
garrison  of  forty  men,  under  a  commander  named  Beaufort.  A  vassal  of 
Douglas's,  Thomas  Dickson,  proposed  to  his  lord  a  plan  for  the  seizure  of 
this  stronghold.  He  knew  the  countryman  who  supplied  the  garrison 
with  firewood,  and  he  offered,  if  Douglas  would  lie  in  ambush  near  the  gate, 
to  personate  this  man  and  procure  an  entrance.  The  offer  was  accepted. 
Douglas  with  thirty  trusty  followers  placed  themselves  near  the  entrance 
of  the  castle,  and  Dickson,  arrayed  in  the  costume  of  the  carrier,  in 
the  grey  dawn  of  the  early  morn,  drove  his  cart  of  wood  up  to  the  gate, 
which,  with  a  remark  as  to  his  untimely  arrival,  the  unsuspecting  porter 
threw  open.  Dickson  immediately  stabbed  the  porter,  and  giving  the  signal, 
Douglas  and  his  men  rushed  in  and  completed  the  work,  all  the  garrison 
being  put  to  death  save  one,  who  escaped  and  gave  the  alarm  to  the  English 
troops  in  the  vicinity.  Concentrating  on  Sanquhar,  these  laid  siege  to  the 
castle,  but  Douglas  found  means  to  convey,  by  his  henchman  Dickson,  a 
message  to  Wallace,  at  that  time  in  the  Lennox,  and  he,  leaving  a  detachment 
to  complete  the  work  he  had  then  in  hand,  immediately  marched  to  Douglas's 
relief.  The  English  fled  at  his  approach,  but  he  overtook  them  before  they 
reached  Dalswiuton  and  put  many  to  death.  Douglas,  adds  the  writer,  was 
after  this  made  warden  of  all  the  district  from  Drumlanrig  to  Ayr.^ 

The  action  taken  by  Douglas  opened  up  the  whole  district  of  Galloway  to 
Wallace's  victorious  arms,  and  was  the  beginning  of  more  united  action  on 
the  part  of  some  of  the  nobles.  James,  the  High  Steward,  with  his  brother 
John,  Sir  Andrew  Moray  of  Bothwell,  Alexander  de  Lindsay,  Sir  Richard 
Lundin,  with  Wishart,  the  Bishop  of  Glasgow,  all  came  to  the  help  of  the 

*  Blind  Harry's  Wallace,  vol.  ii.  pp.  269-277. 


patriot.^  It  had  also  the  further  effect  of  rousing  Edward  to  greater  exertion. 
Up  to  this  time  he  had  considered  the  forces  he  had  left  in  Scotland  amply 
sufficient  for  quelling  the  rebellion,  but  he  now  took  more  effective  measures. 
His  campaign  in  Flanders  prevented  his  personal  attendance,  and  he  there- 
fore appointed  John  de  Warenne,  Earl  of  Surrey,  to  the  office  of  Guardian 
of  Scotland,  and  directed  him  to  collect  an  army  from  the  northern  counties 
of  England  and  invade  the  scene  of  insurrection.-  Wallace,  meanwhile,  was 
endeavouring  to  clear  the  country  of  the  English  governors  and  churchmen, 
and  to  replace  the  ejected  garrisons  with  his  own  men.  He  was  also  about 
this  time  joined  by  another  Scottish  noble,  Robert  Bruce  the  younger, 
afterwards  so  distinguished,  but  who  at  this  time  had  been  acting  a  double 
part.  His  heart  was  with  his  countrymen,  but  he  wished  to  keep  up  au 
appearance  of  fidelity  to  the  English  king,  probably  in  the  hope  that  the 
latter  would  yet  assist  him  to  the  throne  of  Scotland.  His  conduct, 
however,  excited  suspicion,  and  the  English  wardens  of  the  Marches  con- 
sidered themselves  warranted  in  summoning  him  to  Carlisle  and  demanding 
a  further  pledge  of  his  fidelity.  He  attended  as  required  and  renewed  his 
oath  of  fealty  to  Edward,  swearing  upon  the  host  and  the  sword  of  Thomas 
a  Becket.  To  assure  the  minds  of  Edv/ard's  officers,  Bruce  made  a  descent 
upon  the  lands  of  Sir  "William  of  Douglas,  sacked  his  castle,  and  carried 
off  his  wife  and  children  to  his  own  castle  in  Annandale.  With  this, 
however,  Bruce  contented  himself.  On  his  return  to  his  own  neighbourhood 
he  assembled  his  father's  men  (the  elder  Bruce  being  then  absent  in  England), 
told  them  his  oath  had  been  extorted  by  violence  and  under  bodily  fear,  and 
that  he  extremely  regretted  having  given  it,  and  hoped  he  might  obtain 
absolution  in  a  short  time.  "No  man,"  he  said,  "ever  held  his  own  flesh  in 
hatred,  and  neither  do  I :  I  must  hie  me  to  my  own  people,  I  shall  attach 

^  Tytler's  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  127. 

^  Chronicon  Walter!  de  Hemingbiirgh,  vol.  ii.  p.  131. 


myself  to  my  nation,  from  whence  I  drew  my  birth :  Do  you  the  same.  Be 
willing  to  go  with  me,  and  ye  will  be  my  councillors  and  dearest  friends." 
His  father's  men,  however,  refused  his  invitation,  but  not  daunted  by  this, 
with  his  own  followers  he  passed  over  to  the  side  of  Wallace.^ 

The  Earl  of  Surrey  carried  out  his  instructions  from  the  English  king  by 
despatching  to  Galloway  a  large  force  of  upwards  of  forty  thousand  soldiers, 
under  the  command  of  his  nephew,  Henry  of  Percy,  nominal  warden  of  the 
district  of  Galloway  and  Ayr,  They  encamped  the  first  night  at  Lochmaben, 
and  were  attacked  during  the  night  by  the  Scots.  Setting  fire  to  the  huts 
in  which  they  had  been  lodging,  the  English  repulsed  their  assailants,  and 
afterwards  proceeded  to  Ayr  to  receive  to  the  king's  peace  the  inhabitants  of 
Galloway.  During  the  three  days  the  southern  forces  remained  in  Ayr,  onlv 
a  few  Scots  came  to  surrender  themselves,  but  learning  that  "Wallace 
was  encamped  at  Ir\'ine,  a  distance  of  four  leagues  from  Ayr,  Percy  at  once 
proceeded  thither,  and  found  the  Scots  posted  by  the  side  of  a  small  lake. 
Hemingburgh  narrates  that,  when  the  Scottish  leaders,  the  Bishop  of 
Glasgow,  tlie  Steward  of  Scotland,  and  Sir  William  Douglas,  observed  that 
the  English  cavalry  was  superior  to  their  own,  though  they  had  twice  the 
number  of  infantry,  they  became  afraid,  and  sent  messengers  to  the  English 
to  inquire  if  there  was  any  one  who  had  power  to  receive  them  to  the  kind's 
peace.  On  being  answered  in  the  affirmative,  Sir  Eichard  de  Lundin,  who 
had  not  previously  taken  the  oaths  of  allegiance  to  the  English  king,  imme- 
diately passed  over  to  the  English  army  and  surrendered  to  Edward's  pleasure, 
saying  he  would  fight  no  longer  in  company  with  men  who  could  not  agree 
among  themselves.  The  rest  of  the  Scottish  leaders  then  became  alarmed,  and 
at  once  capitulated  on  the  usual  terms  of  safety  of  person,  and  full  pardon  for 
all  offences  committed  up  to  that  day,  to  which  Percy  agreed  on  condition  of 
Edward's  consenting.     "Wallace  alone  stood  firm,  and  would  not  surrender.- 

1  Chronicon  Walter!  de  Hemingburgh,  vol.  ii.  pp.   129.  130.  -  Thkl.  pp.   1.^2,  1.3.3. 

vol..  I.  N 


Mutual  instniments  were  drawn  up  by  Percy  and  the  Scottish  barons, 
detailing  the  conditions  of  the  surrender.  Percy  guaranteed  their  safety 
and  granted  permission  to  the  Bishop  of  Glasgow,  the  Earl  of  Carrick,  and 
the  High  Steward  to  cross  over  to  Gascony  to  the  assistance  of  Edward.^ 
The  Scottish  barons,  on  the  other  hand,  confessed  in  degrading  terms  that 
they  had  risen  with  the  community  against  Edward  and  against  his  peace,  in 
his  lordship  and  land  of  Scotland  and  Galloway,  and  that  they  had  committed 
arson,  murders,  and  robberies,  in  their  own  persons,  and  caused  their  men  to 
do  the  same,  on  account  of  which  they  submitted  to  the  pleasure  of  their  lord 
the  king,  willing  to  make  full  amends  for  these  offences  at  his  pleasure. 
This  submission  is  dated  at  Irvine,  the  9th  of  July  1297,  while  the  English 
counterpart  is  dated  the  7th.'- 

This  shameful  desertion  of  Wallace  did  not  daunt  him  in  his  efforts  to 
make  Scotland  independent,  though  it  tended  to  protract  the  struggle. 
The  unfortunate  dissensions  which  so  often  weakened  the  Scots  in  the 
presence  of  their  enemies,  were  here  also  the  operative  cause  why,  with  a 
strong  army  and  so  gallant  a  leader,  not  a  blow  was  struck,  when,  had 
harmony  prevailed,  success  might  have  been  insured.  But  the  nobles 
appeared  to  disdain  to  hold  command  under  Wallace. 

Soon  after  the  treaty  of  Irvine,  the  Earl  of  Surrey  came  to  Berwick  and 
learned  what  had  been  done.  Negotiations  were  then  entered  into  between 
him  and  the  Scottish  nobles  as  to  the  terms  upon  which  the  latter  would 
cease  hostilities.  The  Scots  complained  of  Edward  summoning  them  for 
service  in  his  foreign  wars  as  an  injury  and  dishonour.^  Hemingburgh  says 
they  were  undecided  how  to  act ;  they  deferred  producing  their  promised 
hostages,  demanded  the  conservation  of  all  their  ancient  laws  and  customs, 
but  upon  frivolous  excuses  put  off  from  day  to  day  coming  to  any  settlement. 

'  Stevenson'a  Historical  Documents,  vol.  ii.  ^  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  ii. 

p.  192-194.  -  Vol.  iv.  of  this  work,  p.  52.        p.  198. 


In  the  meantime  Wallace  was  gathering  the  people  together,  and  the  English 
proposed  that  they  should  ride  out  and  disperse  them.  At  this  the  Scottish 
magnates  touk  alarm,  and  threw  the  blame  upon  Douglas  and  the  Bishop  of 
Glasgow,  who,  to  clear  themselves  from  tlie  imputation,  surrendered  their 
persons  to  Surrey,  Sir  William  Douglas  first,  and  tlien  the  Bishop, 
whereupon  the  latter  was  placed  in  ward  at  Bcxburgh,  and  the  former  at 

From  other  sources  of  information  it  would  appear  that  Douglas  was 
detained  by  Percy  after  the  surrender  at  Irvine,  and  brought  by  him  on  to 
Berwick.  In  a  letter  to  Edward,  dated  24th  July  1297,  the  captain  of  the 
castle  of  Berwick  informs  the  king  that  Sir  Henry  of  Percy  and  Sir  Eobert 
of  Clifford  had  come  from  the  West  to  Eoxburgh,  and  brought  with  them  Sir 
William  of  Douglas  and  Sir  Alexander  of  Lindsay.  The  WTiter  gives  a 
glimpse  of  the  feelings  of  Sir  William  Douglas,  who  seems  to  have  been  a 
very  impatient  captive.  He  writes: — "  Because  Sir  William  Douglas  has  not 
kept  the  covenants  which  he  made  with  Sir  Henry  of  Percy,  he  is  in  your 
castle  of  Berwick  in  my  keeping,  and  he  is  still  very  savage  and  ver}- 
abusive,  but  I  shall  keep  him  in  such  wise  that,  if  it  please  God,  he  shall  not 
escape."  The  letter  concludes  with  a  gentle  liint,  that  as  the  church  of 
Douglas  was  vacant,  and  worth  about  two  hundred  marks,  it  might  be  given 
to  the  Treasurer  of  Scotland  (Cressingham),  who  was  very  active  and 
laborious  in  his  Majesty's  service.-     From  the  terms  of  this  letter  and  what 

'  Chronicon  Walter! (leHemiugburgh,  vol.  ii.  -w-ick   in   irons   and   safe    keeping,    Ood    be 

pp.  133,  134.  thanked,  and  for  a  good  cause,  as  one  who 

has  deserved  it.     And  I  pray  you,  if  it  be 

2  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  ii.  your  pleasure,  let  him  not  be  liberated  for 

p.  205.     In  the  same  work  is  quoted  another  any  profit  or   influence,  until   you  know  to 

letter  in  the  Public  Record  Office,  Londou,  to  what  the  charges  against  him  amoimt.     Of 

the   same   effect.      "  Sire, — Sir   WiUiam    of  your  other  enemies,  may  God  avenge  you,  if 

Douglas  is  in  your  prison  in  the  castle  of  Ber-  he  pleases." — {Ibid.  pp.  205,  206.] 


follows,  it  is  evident  that,  whatever  the  pretext,  the  conditions  of  the 
capitulation  at  Irvine  as  to  personal  liberty  were  not  fulfilled  to  Sir 
William  of  Douglas.  A  week  later,  Surrey  himself  wrote  to  King  Edward 
that  the  unfortunate  knight  was  in  the  castle  of  Berwick  in  strong  irons 
and  safe  custody,  the  excuse  for  such  treatment  being  that  he  did  not,  as 
the  others  did,  produce  his  hostages  on  the  day  appointed.^ 

Douglas's  devotion  to  his  own  country  and  his  taking  part  with  Sir 
William  Wallace  was  followed  by  the  usual  confiscation  of  his  lands  in  Essex 
and  Northumberland.  A  royal  warrant  was  issued  ordering  the  lands  to  be 
seized  by  the  Sheriffs  of  these  two  counties,  and  that  all  the  stock,  with  tlie 
growing  corn  and  other  things,  should  be  sold  at  as  good  value  as  possible, 
and  the  proceeds  given  in  to  the  royal  treasury.  This  mandate  was  issued  on 
7th  June.-  The  news  of  Douglas's  imprisonment  would  also  appear  to  have 
been  acceptable  to  the  English  king,  and  it  is  perhaps  the  best  tribute  to 
the  personal  influence  of  Sir  William  of  Douglas  and  the  value  of  his 
services  to  the  cause  of  Scottish  independence,  that  King  Edward  resolved 
never  to  release  him  now  that  he  was  a  captive.  Circumstances,  however, 
necessitated  his  removal  from  Berwick.  Wallace,  at  Stirling,  inflicted  on 
Surrey  and  his  large  English  army  a  crushing  defeat,  which  caused  all  the 
Englishmen  remaining  in  Scotland  to  re-cross  the  Border  as  speedily  as 
possible.  They  also  evacuated  Berwick,  to  which  the  Scottish  leader  sent  a 
force  under  Haliburton,  though  the  castle  of  Berwick  was  not  surrendered  by 
the  English  garrison  while  the  Scots  held  the  town.  In  their  retreat  from 
Scotland  the  English  took  Douglas  with  them,  and  on  the  12th  of  October 
an  order  was  signed  by  Prince  Edward  in  name  of  his  father  for  the  captive's 
admission  into  the  Tower  of  London.^  In  a  settlement  by  Edward  on 
Eleanor,  wife  of  William  Douglas,  of  the  manor  of  Wodeham  Ferrers,  for 

'  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  ii.  p.  218.     The  letter  is  diitetl  Ist  Aucjust  1297. 
2  Ihhl.  p.  176.  3  ma,  p.  2.35, 


lier  sustenance  during  her  husband's  imprisonment,  on  23d  October  121)7,  lie 
is  described  as  then  detained  in  the  prison  of  the  Tower  of  London.^  For 
his  support  while  in  captivity  the  sum  of  4d.  per  day  was  paid,-  and  lie 
appears  to  have  ended  his  days  in  the  Tower. 

Tytler,  on  the  authority  of  Sibbald,  who  quotes  in  his  commentary  on  the 
Uelationes  Arnaldi  Blair,  a  MS.  Douglas  History  by  Crawford,  states  that 
Douglas  was  present  at  the  appointment  of  Wallace  as  Governor  of  Scotland 
in  name  of  Baliol,  at  Forest  Kirk,  in  Selkirkshire,  in  1298.^  But  this  is 
scarcely  possible.  After  being  placed  in  the  Tower  of  London,  he  is  not 
again  found  taking  any  part  in  his  country's  affairs.  One  chronicle  records 
that  he  died  in  Berwick  of  misadventure  (de  mischef),*  but  as  there  is  no 
indication  on  the  part  of  the  writer  that  he  was  aware  of  Douglas's  subsequent 
removal  into  England,  it  may  be  inferred  that  he  only  wished  to  put  a  proper 
finish  to  an  eventful  life.  Godscroft  has  two  theories — that  he  either  died  in 
Hog's  Tower  in  Berwick,  or  being  removed  from  Berwick  to  Newcastle,  thence 
to  York,  he  died  in  the  castle  there,  and  was  buried  in  a  little  chapel  at  the 
south  end  of  the  bridge.  This,  too,  is  quite  fanciful.  He  assumes  the  year  of 
Douglas's  death  to  have  been  1302,  as  in  the  following  year  his  eldest  son 
made  an  ineffectual  claim  to  recover  his  lands  of  Douglasdale,^  which  had 
been  bestowed  by  the  English  king  on  Sir  Eobert  Cliftbrd.^  This  grant  was 
probably  made  in  1298,  as  in  that  year,  on  the  26th  of  July,  the  church 
of  Douglas  was  given  to  Geoffrey  de  Stokes  by  the  king,  who  does  not  on 

*  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  ii.  ^  Scalacronica,  p.  124. 

p.  235.  °  History   of  the   Houses  of  Douglas  and 

Angus,  pp.  19,  20. 

-  Exchequer  Memoranda,  Roll  26  Edward  i 
Gth  November  1297. 

«  Edward  the  Third  of  England  ia   1332 

referred  to  this  grant,  and  promised  Douglas- 

2  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  146.     The       dale  to  the  grandson  of  this  Clifford,  if  the 

Forest    Kirk   referred    to   was    Carluke,    in       attempt  he  was  making  to  reduce  Scotlantl 

Lanarkshire,    which  was  then   popularly    so       should  be  successful.  —  [Chronicon  de   Laner- 

called. — [Origines  Parochiales,  vol.  i.  p.  115.]        cost,  p.  271.] 


this  occasion  say  that  the  lands  are  in  his  hands.^  It  is  ascertained, 
however,  that  Sir  William  died  ahout  three  years  before  1302,  or  some  time 
in  1298,  apparently  while  still  an  inmate  of  the  Tower.  In  January  1299 
King  Edward  issued  an  order  directing  the  dower  lands  of  P^leanor  de  Ferrers 
to  be  restored  to  her,  and  slie  is  then  described  as  the  widow  of  Sir  William 
Douglas.-  He  may  have  been  dead  before  the  gi'ant  of  Douglasdale  to 
Clifford,  and  another  grant  of  his  manor  of  Fawdon,  which  was  made  on 
24th  November  1298,  to  Gilbert  of  Umfra^'ille.^ 

The  boldness  and  daring  displayed  by  Sir  William  procured  for  him 
the  appellation  of  "  Le  Hardi,"  or  the  Bold.  He  maintained  the  prestige 
and  power  of  the  rising  house  of  Douglas,  and  added  considerably  to  the 
extent  of  its  possessions.  It  was  probably  through  his  second  marriage  that 
he  added  to  his  pre\'ious  territory  the  lands  he  held  in  the  counties  of 
Fife,  Dumfries,  Ayr,  Wigton,  and  part  of  those  he  owned  in  Hadding- 
tonshire. But  from  time  to  time  these  were  confiscated,  and  at  the  end 
of  his  life  they  were  in  the  hands  of  aliens.  A  meed  of  praise  can- 
not be  withheld  from  his  services  to  the  cause  of  Scottish  independence, 
and  though  greater  resolution  would  have  increased  liis  merit,  he  yet  died, 
as  Barbour  puts  it,  a  martyr  for  the  liberty  of  his  country. 

"  Put  in  presoun  Schir  Wilyliam  was 
That  of  Douglas  was  lord  aud  syr. 
Of  him  tha^  makit  ane  martyr 
Fra  tha  in  presoun  him  sleuch 
His  landis  that  war  far  eueuch 
Tha  to  the  lord  of  Cliffuvd  gaf."  ^ 

Sir  William  of  Douglas  was  twice  married.  His  tirst  wife  is  stated 
by  the    Peerage    authors   and    other   writers   to  have  been   a  daughter  of 

'  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  iL  p.  289. 

«  Writ  of  Privy  Seal,  20th  January  1298-99. 

3  Close  Roll,  27  Edward  i.  •  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  13. 


William  de  Keth,  but  no  evidence  is  found  to  support  that  statement.  Sir 
William's  tirst  known  wife  was  Elizabeth,  the  daughter  of  Alexander,  High 
Steward  of  Scotland,  and  consequently  sister  of  Douglas's  co-patriot,  James, 
the  High  Steward.^  In  accord  with  this  view,  Barbour  describes  Walter, 
High  Steward  in  the  time  of  Robert  Bruce,  the  son  of  James,  and  Sir 
James  Douglas,  tlie  son  of  Sir  William,  as  "  cousins  in  near  degree."  -  In 
another  place  that  historian  mentions  the  same  Sir  James  Douglas  as 
entertaining  Sir  Alexander  Stewart  of  Boncle,  the  son  of  Sir  John  Stewart, 
brother  to  James  the  High  Steward,  as  "  his  esme's  "  (uncle's)  "  son."  ^  Tlie 
marriage  of  a  William  Douglas  to  Elizabeth  Stewart  is  narrated  by  Chalmers, 
but  he  affirms  it  to  be  William  Douglas,  Lord  of  Lugton,  who,  he  says,  received 
lands  in  Lanarkshire  from  James  the  High  Steward  after  1283,  his  authority 
being  a  charter  in  his  own  collection,^  the  terms  of  which,  however,  he 
does  not  communicate.  The  earliest  known  connection  of  the  Douglas 
family  with  the  lands  of  Lugton  is  in  the  reign  of  King  David  the 
Second,  when  that  monarch  granted  a  third  part  of  that  territory  to 
Henry  of  Douglas,  a  member  of  the  Dalkeith  branch  of  the  family ;  ^  but 
the  name  of  Douglas  of  Lugton  was  not  assumed  until  a  later  period. 
Chalmers's  statement  accordingly  appears  to  be  incoiTect,  and  the  husband 
of  Elizabeth  Stewart  could  be  no  other  than  the  only  William  Douglas 
of  note  then  living,  Sir  William  "  Le  Hardi."  She  predeceased  him 
before  1289. 

The  second  wife  of  Sir  William  of  Douglas  was  Eleanor  of  Lovain  or 
Ferrers,  his  rough  wooing  of  whom  has  already  been  narrated.  Blind  Harry 
thinks  that  this  English  marriage  did  Douglas  little  good. 

^  Andrew  Stuart's  History  of  the  Stewarts,  '^  Andrew  Stuart's    History,  quoting  Bar- 

p.  14.  hour,  p.  54. 

*  Caledonia,  vol.  i.  p.  583. 
-  Barbour's  Bruce  (Spalding  Club),  p.  2G1.  ^  Registruni  Magni  SigiJli,  p.  68. 

104  ^7  A'    WILLIAM  OF  DOUGLAS,  ^'  LE  HARD  IT 

"  Becauss  he  had  on  Sotherouu  sic  thing  wrocht, 
His  wyft'  was  wraith  ;   hot  it  scho  scbawit  noclit, 
Wndyr  cowart  hyr  malice  hid  perfyt, 
As  a  serpent  watis  hyr  tyni  to  byt. 
Till  Douglace  eft  scho  wrocht  full  mekill  cayr.''^ 

On  her  liusbaud's  arrest  and  imprisonment  in  the  Tower  of  London  she 
left  Scotland,  and  made  application  to  Edward  for  sustenance  out  of  her 
English  lands,  these  being  at  the  time  forfeited  in  the  king's  hands.  Edward 
gi-anted  her  the  manor  of  Wodeham  Ferrers,  which  formed  part  of  the  dowry 
she  had  brought  to  Sir  William  of  Douglas  out  of  the  lands  of  her  former 
husband.  The  manor  had  been  recently  valued  at  £16,  2s.  6d.  annually,  and 
out  of  this  revenue  Eleanor,  Lady  Douglas,  was  to  take  £10  yearly  for  her 
own  sustenance,  and  pay  the  balance  into  the  king's  exchequer,"-  She 
survived  her  husband,  and  after  his  death  obtained  from  the  Eno-lish  kin^ 
her  dowry  out  of  Douglas's  lands  in  Scotland,  an  order  being  sent  to  the 
Chancellor  of  Scotland  to  assign  her  a  reasonable  dowry,  according  to  Scot- 
tish law  and  custom.^ 

Sir  William  of  Douglas  left  three  sons,  James,  Hugh,  and  Archibald,  of 
whom  the  first  only  was  the  offspring  of  Elizabeth  Stewart.  The  chroniclers 
ascribe  to  Sir  William  four  sons,  two  by  each  of  his  wives.  Xo  evidence  as 
to  a  fourth  son  has  been  obtained,  but  it  has  been  ascertained  that  Hu^h 
and  Archibald  Douglas  were  the  sons  of  Eleanor  de  Ferrers.  Of  the  three 
sons  of  Sir  William  Douglas  "  Le  Hardi "  the  memoirs  follow. 

^  Blind    Harry's    Wallace,     by   Jamieson.       Aliauore  de  Ferrers  qe  fu  la  femme  Monsr. 
vol.  ii.  p.  277-  Williaue  de  Douglas   qele  pent    aver   soeu 

douayre  q.  a  ly  a  peut  des  terres  qe  furent  au 
dit  Monsr.  William  ai  Koiame  d'Escoee. 

H'eat  Bre.  Cauc.  8coc.  qd.  assignet  ei  dotem 
^  Rolls   of   the    Parliaments    of    England,       suam   ronabilem   scdm   legem  et  consuetud. 
vol.   i.  p.   470.      Ail   re  Seingnr.   le  Rei  prie        ncium  illar'. 

'  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents,  vol.  ii 
p.  235. 




A  MOXG  the  many  heroes  of  the  wars  for  Scottish  independence  whose 
-*--*-  names  are  cherished  in  the  remembrance  of  a  grateful  posterity,  the 
Good  Sir  James  of  Douglas  takes  rank  with  Wallace  and  the  royal  Bruce. 
Succeeding  to  the  misfortunes  of  his  heroic  but  martyred  sire,  and  withal 
inheriting  his  dauntless  and  unbroken  spirit,  Scotland  had  no  more  successful 
champion  for  her  liberties  and  freedom  than  the  "  doughty  Douglas."  Side 
by  side  with  his  king,  he  laboured  with  unfailing  fidelity  and  devotion  amid 
dangers,  privations,  desertions,  defeats,  painful  toOings,  and  hair-breadth 
escapes,  until  by  a  series  of  successes,  to  which  he  largely  contributed,  his 
country  was  redeemed  from  an  alien  yoke,  and  he  had  at  length  the 
satisfaction  of  seeing  the  independence  of  his  country  settled  on  a  basis 
of  enduring  stability.  No  wonder  he  was  beloved  of  his  sovereign,  and 
intrusted  by  him  when  dying  with  a  most  sacred  mission, — to  bear  his  heart 
to  the  Holy  Sepulchre  at  Jerusalem;  nor  less  wonder  can  it  be  that  the 
story  of  his  life  and  deeds  of  chivalry  are  recounted  to  the  youth  of  every 
succeeding  generation,  as  an  example  alike  of  pure  and  ardent  patriotism 
and  of  heroic  daring. 

So  closely  associated  with  King  Eobert  the  Bruce  in  all  his  sufferings  and 
wanderings,  as  also  in  his  victories  and  ultimate  success,  was  Sir  James  of 
Douglas,  that  the  historians  of  the  one  cannot  discharge  their  task  without 

VOL.  T. 0 


in  large  measure  detailing  the  history  of  the  other.     Hence  in  the  noble  epic 

poem  of  Barbour,  which  traces  the  life  and   battles  of  "  The  Bruce,"  the 

Good  Sir  James   occupies   a   position   little   inferior   to   that  of  the   king 


When  Sir  William  of  Douglas,  the  father  of  Sir  James,  was  imprisoned 

in  the  Tower  of  London,  and  the  lands  and  castle  of  Douglas  conferred  upon 

Sir  Eobert  Clifford,  one  of  King  Edward's  favourites,  Sir  James  Douglas  was 

still  but  a  youth, 

"  ane  litill  knaf 
That  was  than  bot  ane  litill  page."  ^ 

He  resolved  to  seek  refuge  from  danger  in  France,  and  accordingly  passed 
over  to  Paris,  where  for  three  years  he  lived  in  a  simple  manner.  Tidings  then 
came  of  his  father's  death  in  prison,  and  in  the  hope  of  redeeming  his  estates 
and  his  countrymen  out  of  thraldom,  he  returned  to  his  native  land,  betaking 
himself,  in  the  first  instance,  to  William  of  Lamberton,  bishop  of  St. 
Andrews.  He  was  courteously  received,  and  was  at  once  placed  by  the  bishop 
among  his  retinue,  remaining  for  a  considerable  period,  beloved  and  esteemed 
by  all  his  associates. 

Barbour  presents  his  readers  with  a  description  of  the  good  Sir  James, 
which,  as  it  was  obtained  from  those  who  had  seen  the  hero,  may  be  accepted 
as  tolerably  accurate.  Douglas,  he  says,  was  of  a  commanding  stature,  well- 
formed,  large-boned,  and  with  broad  shoulders.  His  countenance  was  some- 
what dark,  but  frank  and  open,  set  off  by  locks  of  raven  hue.  Courteous  in 
his  manner,  wise  though  retiring  in  his  speech,  by  a  slight  lisp  in  which  he 
resembled  the  "  good  Hector  of  Troy,"  and  gentle  in  all  his  actions,  he  won 
the  hearts  of  his  countrymen.  In  battle,  however,  he  presented  a  front 
altogether  terrible  to  his  foes;  and  at  all  times  was  a  determined  enemy 
to  everything  treacherous,  dishonourable,  or  false. 

^  Barbour's  Bruce,  Spalding  Club  edition,  p.  13. 

REFUSED  HIS  DOUGLAS  LAXDS  BY  EDWARD  I.   1304.         lO; 

When  King  Edward  was  engaged  in  the  siege  of  Stirling,  so  bravely- 
defended  against  him  and  the  flower  of  the  English  army  by  Sir  William 
Oliphant  and  a  mere  handful  of  Scottish  soldiers,  or  perhaps  after  it  had 
suiTendered,  Lamberton  visited  the  king,  taking  with  him  Sir  James 
Douglas.  Many  of  the  Scottish  barons  were  present  to  do  homage,  amongst 
whom  Lamberton  led  his  youthful  ward  into  the  royal  presencCj  and  craved 
that  he  also  might  be  permitted  to  tender  his  homage,  and  receive  back  his 
heritage.  "What  lands  does  he  claim  ?"  inquired  the  king.  "  The  lordship 
of  Douglas,  if  it  please  your  Majesty,"  replied  the  bishop,  "  for  his  father 
was  lord  and  owner  thereof."  The  wrath  of  Edward  was  at  once  aroused, 
and  in  a  tone  which  admitted  of  no  question,  he  commanded  the  bishop  to 
address  him  no  further  on  such  a  subject.  "  Let  the  youth,"  he  said,  "  seek 
lands  where  he  can.  As  for  those  of  his  father,  who  was  a  rebellious  subject, 
and  died  for  his  felony  in  my  prison,  I  am  his  rightful  heir.  My  loyal 
Clifford  has  received  the  lands,  and  possess  them  he  shall." ^  Without 
another  word,  Lamberton  and  Douglas  withdrew  from  Edward's  presence; 
and  the  latter,  convinced  of  the  hopelessness  of  expecting  any  favour  from 
the  English  king,  returned  with  the  bishop  to  form  his  own  plans  for  the 
recovery  of  his  inheritance. 

The  progress  of  events  at  last  brought  the  wished-for  opportunity.  Scot- 
land was,  indeed,  more  than  ever  prostrate  at  the  feet  of  Edward.  Wallace 
and  his  brave  associates  were  dead  or  dispersed.  Yet  the  friends  of  liberty, 
though  compelled  to  maintain  an  outward  show  of  fealty  and  submission 
to  the  man  who  had  obtained  possession  of  their  country  by  taking  advantage 
of  its  misfortunes,  nursed  hopes  of  ultimate  victory,  and  longed  for  the 
opportunity  of  realising  their  aspirations  by  deeds  of  bravery.  Even  during 
the  siege  of  Stirling,  whither  they  had  gone  to  renew  their  homage  to 
Edward,  Lamberton  and  Bruce  had  met  at  Cambuskenneth,  and  entered  into 

^  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  18. 


a  solemn  bond  for  mutual  defence  in  all  their  future  actions,  with  the 
significant  stipulation  that  neither  should  attempt  any  hazardous  undertaking 
without  acquainting  and  consulting  the  other.^ 

Bruce  and  Sir  John  Comyn,  as  is  well  known,  had  also  entered  into 
mutual  understandings  for  the  recovery  of  the  national  independence ;  but 
strong  suspicions  of  the  treachery  of  Comyn  in  regard  to  these  led  to  his 
assassination  by  Bruce  at  the  high  altar  of  the  church  of  the  Friars  Minorites 
of  Dumfries.  Bruce  had  already  been  doomed  to  death  by  Edward,  and  as 
his  case  was  as  desperate  as  it  could  be,  he  resolved  to  claim  the  crown 
of  Scotland  and  raise  the  standard  against  Edward.  He  acquainted  Lamberton 
with  what  he  had  done,  and  with  his  intentions,  tidings  so  agreeable  to  the 
bishop,  that  on  receiving  the  letter  he  summoned  all  his  retainers  and  read 
it  to  them,  adding  that  he  hoped  the  prophecy  of  Thomas  of  Ercildoun 
would  now,  by  the  help  of  God,  be  verified,  and  IJobert  the  Bruce  succeed 
in  delivering  the  country. 

Barbour  relates  that  Lamberton  had  no  more  attentive  listener  than 
Sir  James  Douglas,  who,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  repast  at  which  the 
communication  was  read,  sought  a  private  interview  with  the  bishop. 
"  You  know,  sir,"  said  Douglas,  "  how  that  the  English  have  disinherited 
me,  and  are  all  in  arms  against  the  Earl  of  Carrick  for  killing  that 
man,  and  he  claims  to  govern  the  country ;  therefore,  sir,  if  it  please 
you,  I  would  fain  share  his  fortunes,  be  they  good  or  ill;  and  I  hope 
through  him  to  win  back  my  lands  in  spite  of  the  Clifford."  The 
bishop  was  well  pleased  at  the  youth's  determination,  but  to  save 
the  appearance  of  complicity  counselled  him  to  depart  secretly.  He 
also  gave  him  his  blessing,  some  money,  and  leave  to  appropriate  his  own 
palfrey,  Ferand,  with  permission,  if  his  groom  objected,  to  take  the  steed  in 
spite  of  him,  a  liberty  of  which  Douglas  had  to  take  advantage,  for  the 

^  Palgrave's  Documents  and  Records,  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  323. 


fellow  resisted  so  stubbornly  that,  according  to  the  old  chronicler,  Douglas 

"Fellit  him  with  ane  suerdis  dint," 
before  he  could  saddle  the  horse  and  go  forth.  Xo  leavetakings  retarded  his 
departure,  and  probably  within  a  couple  of  hours  after  hearing  the  letter 
from  Bruce  read,  he  was  on  his  way,  alone,  to  join  him  at  Lochmaben. 
Leslie  adds  that  he  was  also  the  bearer  of  a  considerable  sum  of  money 
from  Lamberton  to  Bruce,  to  aid  him  in  his  efforts. 

Bruce  had  already  set  out  on  his  way  to  Scone  to  be  crowned,  and 
Douglas  met  the  cavalcade  at  Erickstane,^  a  lofty  hill  at  the  head  of 
Annandale.  Dismounting  from  his  palfrey,  Douglas,  on  bended  knee,  hailed 
Bruce  as  his  rightful  sovereign,  made  known  who  he  was,  and  declared  his 
wish  to  share  the  fortunes  of  his  king,  Bnice  gladly  received  the  young 
and  ardent  adherent,  and  knowing  the  prowess  of  his  family,  at  once  gave  him 
a  command  in  his  small  army.-  He  accompanied  Bruce  to  Glasgow  and 
afterwards  to  Scone,  where,  on  the  27th  of  March  1306,  the  coronation  of 
the  rightful  king  was  effected  with  all  the  solemnities  possible  under  the 
circumstances,  for  Edward  had  carried  off  the  regal  insignia.  Here  Godscroft 
represents  Sir  James  of  Douglas  as  taking  part  in  an  ancient  custom,  which 
consisted  in  piling  up  a  little  hill  of  earth,  formed  by  contributions  from 
the  estates  of  the  landed  proprietors  in  the  kingdom,  who  thereby  performed 
an  act  of  homage  to  the  newly  crowned  king,  aud  recognised  his  superiority 
over  their  possessions.  The  hillock  thus  created  was  called  Omnis  Terra, 
and  Sir  James  of  Douglas  is  said  to  have  added  to  it  some  of  the  soil  from 
the  lands  of  Douglas.^ 

'  To  an  immense  hollow,  square  in  form,  stolen   cattle.     The  place  is  also   popularly 

made  by  the  meeting   of   four   hills  at  this  called  '•  The  Deil's  Beef-tub."     It  is  described 

point,    tradition   gives   the   name    of    "The  by  Sir  Walter  Scott  in  "  Redgauntlet." 

Marquis  of  Annandale's  Beef-stand,"  from  the  -  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  31. 

circumstance  that  the  Annandale  reivers  were  ^  History  of  the  Houses  of   Douglas   and 

wont  to  use  the  place  for  the  concealment  of  Angus,  p.  24. 


A  few  months  after  this  auspicious  commencement  the  brightening  hopes 
of  the  new  Scottish  Court  were  sadly  beclouded  by  the  defeat  of  Bruce  at 
the  hands  of  Aymer  de  Valence  in  the  battle  of  Methven.  With  difficulty 
escaping  capture,  Bruce  found  himself  on  the  morning  after  the  battle 
surrounded  by  only  a  faithful  few,  among  whom  were  his  brother  Edward, 
the  Earl  of  Athole,  Sir  Gilbert  Hay,  Sir  Nigel  Campbell,  and  Sir  James 
Douglas.  For  a  time  the  mountains  of  Athole  afforded  them  shelter  and 
protection ;  but  at  length,  worn  out  with  their  sufferings  and  privations,  and 
their  numbers  becoming  constantly  reduced,  the  little  band  ventured  to  the 
town  of  Aberdeen.  Here  they  were  joined  by  the  Queen,  Sir  iSTigel  Bruce, 
and  the  wives  of  some  of  the  companions  of  Bruce,  who  had  resolved  to 
accompany  their  husbands  and  share  their  privations,  if  unable  to  add 
aught  to  their  solace.  After  a  short  stay  in  Aberdeen  the  small  party,  thus 
increased,  were  forced  by  their  enemies  to  resort  again  to  the  hills  towards 
the  source  of  the  Tay.  The  presence  of  the  ladies  afforded  an  agreeable 
diversion  amid  their  privations,  and  for  their  subsistence,  the  stern  warriors 
vied  with  each  other  in  the  chase  or  in  the  more  ingenious  devices  of  snarino- 
game,  which  they  brought  as  spoils  to  their  gentler  companions.  In  these 
sports  none  excelled  the  youthful  Douglas,  while  his  native  buoyancy  and 
ready  wit  cheered  and  consoled  the  hearts  of  all,  and  encouraged  even  Bruce 
himself,  on  whom  the  care  of  all  depended.^ 

Brought  in  the  course  of  their  wanderings  to  the  borders  of  Argyll,  the 
king  and  his  companions  were  suddenly  beset  by  a  force,  numbering  over  a 
thousand  men,  under  the  leadership  of  the  Lord  of  Lorn,  who  was  related  by 
marriage  to  the  Comyns.  In  the  conflict  which  ensued  both  Sir  James 
Douglas  and  Sir  Gilbert  Hay  were  wounded,  but  the  personal  prowess  of 
Bruce  compelled  his  opponent  to  withdraw  such  of  his  caterans  as  had  not 
been  slain.     The  fear  of  more  such  encounters  and  the  approach  of  winter, 

^  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  4G. 

SHARES  BRUCE' S  PRIVATWXS,  c.  1306.  Ill 

which  had  ah'eady  sent  forth  its  harbingers  in  the  shape  of  "  cald,  and 
schouris  snell,"  resulted  in  the  ladies  of  the  party  being  sent  under  the 
care  of  Sir  Nigel  Bruce  and  the  Earl  of  Athole  to  Kildrummie  Castle,  which 
was  expected  from  its  great  strength  to  stand  a  siege  of  any  duration  if 
provided  with  plenty  of  provisions.  Bruce  himself,  with  two  hundred 
followers,  resolved  to  seek  shelter  in  one  of  the  Western  Islands,  and 
having  given  up  all  their  horses  to  the  ladies,  and  those  who  were  to  convoy 
them,  they  began  their  journey  on  foot.  Retreating  through  Perthshire,  they 
gained  the  shores  of  Loch  Lomond,  but  were  here  brought  to  a  stand  for  want 
of  the  means  of  transport.  To  walk  round  the  loch  was  attended  with  no 
little  risk,  while  their  enemies  were  on  their  track.  From  this  danger 
the  party  escaped  by  Sir  James  Douglas  discovering,  sunk  under  the  water 
near  the  shore,  a  very  small  boat,  sufficient  to  carry  over  two  at  a  time, 
with  another  to  row.  Bruce  and  Douglas  were  the  first  to  cross,  but  it  took 
all  that  night  and  the  following  day  to  complete  the  transport,  even  with 
some  of  the  men  swimming ;  and  during  the  weary  task  Bruce  beguiled  the 
impatient  hours  with  stories  of  romance  and  chivaliy. 

When  all  had  crossed,  the  company  was  divided  into  two  parties,  under 
the  command  respectively  of  Bruce  and  Douglas,  each  of  which  went  in 
search  of  game  or  food  of  some  kind.  Scant  success  fell  to  the  lot  of  either, 
but  an  unexpected  and  affectionate  meeting  took  place  between  Bruce  and 
his  steady  adherent,  jNIalcolm  Earl  of  Lennox,  when  the  immediate  wants  of 
the  fugitives  were  abundantly  attended  to,  and  a  secure  though  short  rest 
obtained.  At  such  a  juncture,  however,  the  neighbourhood  of  Argyll  was 
no  sure  refuge  for  Bruce,  and  Sir  Nigel  Campbell  having  procured  shipping, 
with  the  necessary  stores,  the  king  took  leave  of  his  kind  entertainer,  and 
set  sail  for  Kint}Te.  Thither  Lennox  was  immediately  compelled  to  follow, 
and  thereafter  shared  the  fortunes  of  his  royal  master.  It  was  in  recognition 
of  his  kindness  at  tliis  time  that  Bruce,  after  the  battle  of  Bannockburn, 


granted  to  him  the   privilege  of  gu'th  or  sanctuary  for  three  miles  round 
the  church  of  Luss,  as  well  on  water  as  on  land,^ 

A  few  days  were  spent  in  Kintyre  with  Angus  of  Isla,  who  placed  at 
Bruce's  disposal  his  castle  of  Dunaverty,  and  then,  with  his  following 
increased  to  three  hundred,  the  king  crossed  to  tlie  little  island  of  Eachrin, 
on  the  Irish  coast,  to  spend  the  winter.-  But  while  this  afforded  them 
shelter  and  safety,  the  ladies  and  those  who  had  remained  to  defend  them 
in  Kildrummie  Castle,  had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  Edward,  from  whom  they 
received  little  mercy. 

The  sojourn  in  Eachrin  was  but  a  weary  solace  to  men  of  active  and 
anxious  minds.  Barbour  represents  Sir  James  Douglas  as  angry  at  the 
protracted  but  enforced  idleness,  and  also  at  the  cost  and  trouble  which 
their  stay  was  entailing  upon  the  poor  inhabitants  of  the  hospitable  island. 
He  accordingly,  as  soon  as  the  season  permitted,  proposed  to  Sir  Eobert 
Boyd  that  they  should  make  a  descent  upon  the  island  of  Arran,  and 
wrest  the  castle  of  Brodick  out  of  the  hands  of  the  English.  Boyd  at 
once  consented,  and  from  his  intimate  personal  knowledge  of  the  district, 
and  the  castle  itself,  presaged  a  successful  issue.  They  intimated  their  purpose 
to  the  king,  and  here  Godscroft  narrates  the  well-known  incident  of  Bruce 
and  the  spider,  but  instead  of  making  Bruce  the  spectator  of  the  insect's 
efforts,  successive  failures  and  final  achievement  of  its  purpose,  gives  that 
position  to  Sir  James  of  Douglas,  who  related  it  to  the  king  in  the  course 
of  a  consultation  respecting  their  future  procedure. 

"  Sir,"  says  Douglas,  "  I  being  somewhat  solitary  in  the  fields,  seriously 
contemplating  of  your  affairs,  and  casting  my  eyes  about,  I  espied  a  spider 
climbing  by  his  web  to  the  height  of  a  tree,  and  at  twelve  several  times 
I  perceived  his  web  broke,  and  the  spider  fell  to  the  ground.  But  the 
thirteenth  time  he  attempted  and  climbed  up  the  tree  without  difficulty. 

^  The  Lenaox,  by  William  Fraser,  voL  i.  pp.  23G,  237.         -  Barbour's  Bruce,  pp.  70-7G. 


So,  sir,  although  fortune  hath  shewn  herself  adverse  towards  you  in  twelve 
several  battles  and  encounters  whereby  your  majesty  is  driven  to  this 
exigence  as  to  take  the  Hebrides  for  your  refuge,  my  advice  is  to  follow  the 
example  of  the  spider,  to  push  forward  your  majesty's  fortune  once  more,  and 
hazard  yet  our  persons  the  thirteenth  time,  and  I  trust  in  God  he  shall  give 
a  happy  and  prosperous  event  to  our  enterprise.  Which  counsel,  being  heard 
by  the  king,  after  mature  deliberation,  the  opinions  of  all  being  thoroughly 
examined,  the  conclusion  was  that  the  Lord  Douglas,  accompanied  with  forty 
men,  should  sail  to  the  isle  of  Arran  (as  then  commanded  by  the  English) 
and  attempt  with  these  small  forces,  assisted,  as  they  hoped,  by  the  inhabi- 
tants, to  recover  the  place  for  their  own  use."  ^ 

Having  matured  their  plans,  Douglas  and  Boyd  set  sail  for  Arran,  where 
they  arrived  in  safety  by  night.  Next  morning  they  waylaid  the  under- 
warden  of  the  castle,  on  his  landing  with  a  cargo  of  provisions,  arms,  and 
clothing.  They  slew  most  of  the  soldiers  and  carriers,  chased  the  rest  within 
the  gates  of  the  castle,  and  then  retired  with  their  booty  to  a  narrow  but 
secure  gorge  in  the  neighbourhood,  where  in  a  few  days  they  were  joined  by 
Bruce  with  the  rest  of  his  party.  From  Arran  a  messenger  w^as  despatched 
to  discover  the  condition  of  Carrick,  and  signal  to  the  king  if  affairs  were 
ripe  for  an  attack.  The  signal  decided  on,  the  lighting  of  a  fire  on  the 
heights  near  Turnberry  Castle,  was  unwittingly  given  by  some  one,  where- 
upon Bruce  and  his  whole  party  set  sail  for  Carrick.  Proceeding  to  his 
own  castle  of  Turnberry,  occupied  at  the  time  by  Percy  and  a  large  force 
of  the  English,  Bruce  laid  waste  in  the  night-time  the  whole  district  in  the 
immediate  vicinity,  slew  all  the  dependants  and  soldiers  quartered  in  the 
houses,  and  carrying  off  great  spoil,  fortified  himself  in  the  hills. 

Encouraged  by  this  success,  Douglas  meditated  striking  a  blow  at  the 
wTongful  possessors  of  his  own  inheritance,  and  having  obtained  Bruce's 

^  Godscroft'a  ais.  History,  p.  44. 
VOL.  I.  P 


permission,  he  set  ofi'  for  Douglasdale  accompanied  by  only  two  yeomen. 
In  disguise  he  reached  his  native  valley,  and  having  privily  sought  out 
his  father's  sturdy  and  faithful  henchman,  Thomas  Dickson,  was  cordially 
and  affectionately  welcomed,  and  secreted  in  his  house  of  Hazelside.  Here 
Dickson  night  after  night  brought  to  his  young  lord  one  by  one  the  most 
trustworthy  and  devoted  of  his  father's  vassals,  who,  overjoyed  to  see  the  son 
of  their  former  lord,  swore  to  give  him  their  loyal  and  unyielding  support. 
These  furnished  Douglas  with  all  the  information  needed  to  mature  his 
plans,  and  he  speedily  revealed  to  them  the  plot  he  had  formed  for  the 
overthrow  of  their  English  oppressors.  It  lacked  but  a  few  days  to  Palm 
Sunday,  when  the  garrison  of  Douglas  Castle  would  march  out  in  force  to 
the  neighbouring  church  of  St.  Bride.  Douglas,  too,  would  be  there  in 
the  guise  of  a  peasant,  bearing  a  flail,  his  armour  covered  with  a  mantle, 
while  his  men  would  also  present  themselves  armed,  though  outwardly  in 
the  guise  of  peaceful  worshippers.  The  signal  for  the  united  onset  was  to 
be  their  war-cry  "  Douglas." 

The  English  had  not  the  slightest  suspicion  of  the  terrible  surprise  that 
was  in  store  for  them,  and  with  unusual  carelessness  the  castle  was  left 
in  the  sole  care  of  the  porter  and  the  cook.  All  had  come  forth  to  the 
solemnity,  and  had  almost  filled  the  little  church,  when  the  dreaded 
slogan  burst  forth,  and  they  were  suddenly  attacked  both  from  within  and 
without  the  edifice.  The  signal  had  been  somewhat  premature,  before 
Douglas  himself  was  on  the  spot,  one  result  of  which  was  that  his  faith- 
ful vassal  Dickson  was  stricken  down  before  assistance  could  be  ren- 
dered.^     The  English  soldiers  made  a  desperate  resistance,  but  inspired  by 

^  Tytler,  Sir  Walter  Scott,  and  Godscroft,  The   slogan    having   been    raised   too   soon, 

all   state   that   Dickson  was   killed   in   this  Dickson  and  another  rushed  into  the  church 

encounter,    but    the    narrative   by   Barbour  and  began  to  lay  about  them, 
implies    no    more    than  that  he    was  jilaced  "  Bot  tha  in  hy  war  left  lyand." 

hors  (k  combat  in  the  beginning  of  the  melee.  Shortly  after  this,  the  barony  of  Symingtou, 

THE  DOCGLAS  LARDER,   1307.  115 

the  intrepidity  and  courage  of  their  leader,  Douglas's  men  were  completely 
victorious.  The  castle  was  next  entered,  and  finding  there  the  repast  which 
had  been  prepared  for  the  slaughtered  garrison,  Douglas  and  his  followers  sat 
down  and  enjoyed  it  at  their  leisure.  They  afterwards  removed  from  the 
castle  everything  that  was  valuable  or  costly.  Tiien  gathering  together  all 
the  remaining  provisions,  malt,  corn,  flour,  they  tossed  them  in  a  heap  into 
the  wine  cellars,  staved  in  the  heads  of  the  casks  of  liquor,  beheaded  their 
prisoners,  and  flinging  their  bodies,  and  those  of  their  fellows  who  had  fallen 
in  the  church,  indiscriminately  with  the  carcases  of  dead  horses  into  the  foul 
mass,  set  fire  to  the  pile,  and  reduced  all  with  tlie  castle  to  ashes.  The 
memory  of  this  ghastly  deed  is  preserved  in  the  traditions  of  Douglasdale  by 
the  name  of  the  "  Douglas  Larder."  ^ 

According  to  Barbour,  Douglas  did  not  return  at  once  to  King  Eobert,  but 
lurked  quietly  among  the  hills  of  his  own  lands,  though  Godscroft  thinks,  and 
with  probability,  that  he  must  have  rejoined  Bruce.  Meanwhile  Sir  Piobert 
Clifl'ord,  on  hearing  of  the  destruction  of  the  castle,  came  from  England  with 
a  large  staff  of  workmen,  and  having  rebuilt  the  edifice,  left  it  in  charge  of  a 
captain  named  Thirlwall,  No  sooner,  however,  had  Clifford  retired  than 
Douglas  resolved  to  test  the  mettle  of  this  new  warden,  and  placing  an 
ambuscade  on  the  lands  of  Sandilands,  at  some  distance  from  the  castle,  in  the 
early  morning  he  sent  a  few  of  his  men  to  drive  off  some  cattle  that  were 
pasturing  under  the  walls  of  the  fortress.  They  did  so,  and  drove  them  towards 
the  spot  where  Douglas  and  his  men  lay  concealed,  wliile  a  number  of  the 
garrison,  led  by  Thirlwall,  started  in  pursuit.  As  soon  as  the  latter  had 
passed  the  ambush  they  were  assailed  both  in  front  and  rear,  and  in  the 

in  Lanarkshire,  was  bestowed  by  King  Eobert  and  Hazelside  long  afterwards.     [The  Ufiper 
theBruce  upon  Thomas,  son  of  Fvichard,  [Regis-  Ward  of  Lanarkshire,  by  Irving  and  Murray, 
trum  Magni  Sigilli,  vol.  L  pp.  15,  78],  and  the  vol.  i.  p.  188;  vol.  ii.  p.  139.] 
family  then  assumed  the  surname  of  Syming- 
ton.    His  descendants  held  both  Symington  ^  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  115. 



conflict  Thirlwall  and  several  of  his  men  were  slain,  a  few  escaping  by  flight 
to  the  castle,  closely  pursued  by  Douglas,  who,  however,  was  unable  to 
capture  the  castle  on  this  occasion.^ 

Having  obtained  information  that  the  Earl  of  Pembroke  was  on  his  way 
from  England  with  a  large  force,  which  included  John  of  Lorn  and  Bruce's 
own  nephew  Randolph,  who  had  joined  the  English  after  being  taken  prisoner 
at  Methven,  Douglas  hastened  to  Cumnock  to  warn  the  king  and  aid  him  in 
the  emergency.  It  was  at  this  time  that  the  well-known  adventure  of  Bruce 
with  the  sleuth-hound  and  John  of  Lorn  took  place,  when  he  and  his  followers 
were  so  separated  that  the  king  was  left  alone.  He  was  immediately  joined 
at  an  appointed  rendezvous  by  Douglas  and  a  mounted  force,  and  seizing, 
by  Douglas's  information  and  advice,  an  opportunity  when  the  English, 
thinking  themselves  victorious,  were  lying  careless  and  insecure,  they 
inflicted  on  one  of  their  largest  outposts  a  crushing  defeat.  Bruce  then  made 
himself  master  of  Kyle  and  Cunningham,  compelling  the  inhabitants  to 
acknowledge  him  as  their  king.  Thereupon  Pembroke  despatched  Sir  John 
de  Mowbray-  from  Both  well  with  a  thousand  men  into  that  district.  But 
Sir  James  Douglas,  with  sixty  men,  posting  himself  at  a  place  called  Ederford, 
in  the  only  way  by  which  Mowbray  could  pass,  a  narrow  defile  flanked  on 
both  sides  by  morasses  impassable  for  horse,  quietly  awaited  the  approach  of 
the  English.  No  sooner  had  their  vanguard,  headed  by  Mowbray  himself, 
reached  the  spot,  than  it  was  vigorously  attacked  by  Douglas  and  his  men, 
who,  strewing  the  pass  with  the  bodies  of  their  foes,  cut  off  the  retreat  of 
the  English  leader,  and  forced  his  followers  to  fly.  In  desperation  Mowbray 
cut  his  way  through  the  lines  of  the  Scots,  and  effected  his  escape  to  the 
castle  of  Inverkip,  then  garrisoned  by  his  countrymen.  This  success  was 
followed  by  a  victory  on  the  part  of  Bruce,  who  defeated  Pembroke  at  Loudoun 

1  Barbour's  Bruce,  pp.  140-142.  Mowbray,  but  Tytler  supposes  it  rather  to  be 

-  Barbour  gives  the  name  as  Sir  Philip  de       John. — [History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  240.] 



Hill  ou  10th  May.  Pembroke  retreated  to  Ayr  Castle.  Three  days  later,  it 
is  said,  a  second  army,  under  the  command  of  Ralph  de  Monthermer,  Earl  of 
Gloucester,  suffered  a  still  more  disastrous  defeat,  and  was  chased  to  the 
same  refuge,  to  which  Bruce  laid  siege,  but  was  compelled  to  raise  it,  and 
betake  himself  to  the  hills  on  the  approach  of  another  army  of  relief.^  Some 
sharp  skirmishes  in  Glen  Trool,  which  afterwards  took  place,  so  disorganised 
the  plans  of  the  English  that  Pembroke  was  forced  to  retire  into  England. 

Edward  now  saw  tliat  if  the  English  crown  was  to  retain  its  hold 
upon  Scotland,  he  must  as  formerly  command  his  troops  in  person.  Sum- 
moning an  immense  army  to  meet  him  at  Carlisle,  he  placed  himself  at  its 
head  and  commenced  his  march.  But  "  the  Hammer  of  the  Scots  "  had 
already  stricken  his  last  blow.  He  expired,  on  the  7th  July  1307,  at  Burgh- 
upon-Sands,  a  small  village  a  few  miles  distant  from  Carlisle,  commending 
with  his  last  breath  and  in  most  solemn  terms,  the  completion  of  his  task 
to  his  son  and  successor. 

Under  Edward  the  Second  of  England  the  army  collected  by  his 
father  only  marched  to  Cumnock,  and  retired  again  into  England  without 
accomplishing  anything.  Another  army  under  John  of  Brittany,  Earl  of 
Richmond,  the  newly  appointed  Warden  of  Scotland,  is  said  to  have  inflicted 
a  defeat  upon  Bruce,  and  to  have  rendered  it  expedient  for  him  to  retire  into 
the  north  of  Scotland.^  But  the  probability  of  any  such  battle  is  greatly 
weakened  by  the  fact  that  every  historian,  save  one  anonymous  chronicler, 
is  silent  on  the  subject,  and  that  when  Bruce  went  north  with  the  object 
of  reducing  the  English  garrisons  there  and  the  recalcitrant  Scots,  he  left 
Sir  James  Douglas  in  the  south  to  reduce  the  border  districts  of  Selkirk 
and  Jedburgh.^  Douglas  began  this  task  by  a  third  attack  on  his  own 
castle  in  Douglasdale,  which  had  become  so  famous  in  the  annals  of  chivalry 

1  Scalacronica,  p.  132  ;  Triset's  Annals,  p.  413  ;  Hemingburgh,  vul.  ii.  p.  265. 
-  Tytler's  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  24.'5.  '  Barbour,  p.  188. 


that  it  was  known  as  "  the  Adventurous  Castle."  ^  The  story  is  told  of  a  wealthy 
heiress  of  noble  English  birth,  beset  with  suitors,  assembling  them  all  at  a 
festivity,  and  a  minstrel  having  sung  the  deeds  of  the  redoubtable  Douglas  in 
his  own  lands,  and  the  danger  of  holding  such  a  hazardous  but  honourable 
post  as  Douglas  Castle,  she  openly  declared  her  intention  to  bestow  her  hand 
upon  the  knight  who  should  hold  it  for  a  year  and  a  day  in  the  interests  of 
the  King  of  England.  Of  all  the  knights  who  surrounded  her  table  only 
one.  Sir  John  de  Wanton,-  was  found  brave  enough  to  accept  the  conditions. 
His  offers  to  hold  the  post  were  accepted,  and  he  it  was  who,  at  this  time, 
was  in  command  of  Douglas  Castle,  with  a  stronger  garrison  than  any  of  his 

Understanding  that  the  castle  was  not  over-well  stocked  with  supplies, 
Douglas  conceived  a  stratagem  whereby  he  might  draw  out  the  governor  with 
his  troops  into  an  ambush,  and  then  overthrow  them.  On  the  mornin"  of  a 
great  fair  day  at  Lanark,  after  placing  his  men  in  ambush  at  a  convenient 
spot,  he  instructed  fourteen  of  them  to  fill  sacks  with  grass,  throw  them  over 
the  backs  of  their  horses,  and  concealing  their  armour  under  countrymen's 
frocks,  to  drive  their  beasts  past  the  castle,  as  if  they  were  traders  on 
their  way  to  market.  The  passage  of  the  large  cavalcade  with  provender 
so  much  needed  by  the  garrison  was  reported  to  Sir  John  de  Wanton, 
who  at  once  ordered  his  men  to  start  in  pursuit,  and  rode  at  their  head. 
They  passed  the  ambuscade  unheeded,  and  drew  near  their  supposed 
prize,  when  suddenly  the  sacks  were  thrown  away,  the  rustic  garments 
followed,  and  Douglas's  men  leaping  on  their  horses,  the  English  were 
confronted  with  a  body  of  well-armed  and  resolute  warriors.  Sir  John 
de  Wanton  at  once  attempted  a  retreat  to  the  castle,  but  only  turned  to  find 

'  Sir  Walter  Scott's    novel  "  Castle  Dan-  -  Barbour  calls  him  Sir  Joha  Webetoun, 

gerous "  is  based  upon  the  incidents  of  thi.->  but  Tytler  is  of  opinion  that  it  should  be 
third  assault  by  Douglas  upon  Douglas  Castle.        Wanton. — [History,  vol.  i.  p.  2.51.] 

CAPTURES  RANDOLril  IN  TWEEDDALE,  c.   1308.  119 

himself  beset  on  all  sides,  and  in  the  struggle  which  ensued  the  garrison 
were  overpowered  and  nearly  all  slain,  with  their  commander.  On  his  dead 
body,  it  is  said,  was  discovered  a  letter  from  the  lady,  in  the  hope  of  whose 
hand  and  heart  he  had  accepted  his  fatal  post.  Douglas  next  proceeded  to 
the  castle,  which  was  yielded  up  to  him.  On  their  surrender  he  not  only 
spared  the  lives  of  the  English  soldiers  who  had  remained  therein  during 
the  affray,  but  dismissed  them  with  marks  of  kindness  to  their  own  country. 
On  this  occasion  Douglas  razed  the  castle  to  the  ground.^ 

For  some  time  after  this  exploit,  the  reduction  of  the  English  strongholds 
in  the  forests  of  Selkirk  and  Jedburgh  occupied  Douglas  fully,  and  it  was 
during  this  period  that  he  captured  Eandolph,  Bruce's  nephew,  who  was 
fighting  in  the  English  interest  against  his  uncle.  Approaching  one  night 
a  solitary  liouse  on  the  banks  of  the  Lyne  in  the  moorland  district  of 
Tweeddale,  where  he  intended  to  lodge,  he  heard  strange  voices  which  yet 
were  not  altogether  unknown.  He  surrounded  the  building  with  his  men, 
and  was  successful,  after  a  stubborn  contest,  in  making  prisoners  of  Randolph 
and  Alexander  Stewart  of  Boncle,  the  latter  being  Douglas's  own  cousin, 
while  a  third,  Adam  of  Gordon,  effected  his  escape.  This  capture  was 
one  of  the  most  important  events  of  the  campaign,  and  after  feasting  his 
two  prisoners,  Douglas  hastened  on  the  following  day  to  place  them  at  the 
disposal  of  the  king.  For  rashly  and  imprudently  defying  his  uncle's  right 
to  arraign  him,  Randolph  was  committed  for  a  time  to  close  confinement ; 
but  better  thoughts  prevailed,  and  on  submission  he  was  created  Earl  of 
]\[oray,  and  by  his  brave  and  daring  deeds  amply  redeemed  his  former 
unpatriotic  conduct. 

Bruce,  despite  a  serious  illness,  had  carried  out  a  most  successful  cam- 
paign in  the  north  of  Scotland,  in  the  course  of  which  he  inflicted  that  terrible 
vengeance  on  the  Comyns  and  their  country  known  as  the  "  harrying  of 

1  Barbour,  pp.  ISS-191. 


Buchan."  His  brother  Edward,  too,  in  conjunction  with  Douglas,^  had  com- 
pletely subjugated  the  district  of  Galloway,  while  Douglas  had  given  good 
accounts  of  the  districts  allotted  to  his  care.  With  the  forces  of  Douglas  united 
to  his  own,  the  kiug  now  determined  to  pay  part  of  his  debt  to  the  Lord 
of  Lorn,  and  made  an  incursion  into  his  territory.  Lorn  posted  his  men  on 
the  heights  above  the  well-known  Pass  of  Brander,  at  the  foot  of  the  majestic 
Ben  Cruachan ;  but  Bruce,  informed  of  his  intention,  sent  Douglas  with  a 
body  of  archers  by  a  circuitous  route,  to  take  possession  of  the  higher  parts 
of  the  mountain.  On  entering  the  Pass  the  royal  army  were  immediately 
assailed  with  shouts  by  Lorn's  Highlanders,  who  detached  great  stones  and 
rolled  them  down  the  precipitous  slopes,  then  dashed  forward  to  the  attack. 
Already  the  nimble,  light-armed  soldiers  of  Bruce  were  far  up  the  hill  to  meet 
them,  and  when  the  onset  began  the  Highlanders  were  unexpectedly  attacked 
by  Douglas  and  his  archers  in  the  rear,  and  broke  and  fled.  The  troops  of 
Lorn  sustained  great  slaughter  in  the  pursuit,  and  Lorn  iled,  after  having, 
from  his  galleys  in  Loch  Etive,  beheld  his  o%vn  defeat,  which  he  was  power- 
less to  prevent.  Bruce  then  laid  siege  to  the  castle  of  Dunstaffnage,  occupied 
by  the  father  of  John  of  Lorn,  Alexander  of  Argyll,  who  was  compelled 
to  surrender  and  swear  homage  to  the  king. 

After  some  further  successes,  among  which  was  the  capture  of  the  castle 
of  Rutherglen,  Bruce  assembled  his  first  Parliament  at  St.  Andrews  towards 
the  close  of  the  year  1308  (16th  March).  Douglas  was  present  as  one  of  the 
barons  of  the  realm,  and  took  part  in  sending  the  letter  to  Philip  the  Fourth 
of  France,  who  had,  by  his  ambassador,  asked  assistance  in  his  crusade  a^-ainst 
the  Saracens — a  letter  in  w^hich  the  Scots  state  their  sincere  sympathies 
with  the  object  of  the  request,  but  also  that  they  are  necessitated  to  defer 
participation  until  their  own  kingdom  had  been  delivered  from  oppression 
and  the  grievous  storms  of  war.-     Tliis  was  just  such  a  reply  as  might  have 

1  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  212.  -  Acts  of  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland,  voL  i.  p.  439. 

SUCCESS  OF  THE  EFFORTS  OF  BRUCE,  c.   1308.  121 

been  expected  from  Bruce  and  Douglas  and  their  compatriots,  and  one  in  ^^■\nd^ 
the  entire  community  would  heartily  join,  they  having  been  taught  by  their 
patriotic  bishops  that  to  fight  against -the  King  of  England  was  as  meritorious 
as  warring  with  the  Saracen  in  the  Holy  Land.^  At  length,  too,  the  fruits  of 
their  heroic  efforts  were  appearing,  for  Bruce  was  distinctly  acknowledged 
by  the  French  king  as  King  of  Scotland,  and  assured  of  his  sympathy  a^nd 
friendship.  This  was  frequently  shown  by  the  intervention  of  Philip  of 
France  in  behalf  of  the  Scots  ^vith  the  King  of  England.^  The  Pope  also 
favoured  the  cause  of  Scottish  independence. 

William  Lamberton,  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews,  and  Pobert  Wishart,  Bishop 
of  Glasgow,  had,  shortly  after  the  coronation  of  Bruce  in  13U6,  been  seized 
by   Edward  the  First  and  imprisoned  in  England.     Two  years  afterwards 
Pope  Clement  the  Fifth  wrote  to  Edward  the  Second  demanding  their  libera- 
tion, and  requesting  that  sovereign  to  refrain  from  interference  in  matters 
ecclesiastical     Edward  at  once  gave  some  enlargement  to  Lamberton,  but 
decHned  at  first  in  the  ca==e  of  Wishart.     Lamberton  renewed  his  oath  of 
fealty  to  Edward  in  August   1308,  and  on  the    IGth  of  February  1309-10 
he  was  appointed  one  of  several  commissioners  to  conclude  a  truce  with  the 
Scots.3     The  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews  seems  to  have  inspired  the  King  of 
England  with  a  remarkable  degree  of  confidence  in  his  fidelity,  so  that  he  was 
not  only  permitted  but  urged  to  remain  in  Scotland  in  the  English  interest, 
and  Edward  not  once,  but  four  times  between   July  1311    and  December 
1312,  implored  the  Pope  to  excuse  the  absence  of  that  bishop  from  the 
general  councQ  at  Vienna,  on  account  of  the  urgent  necessity  of  his  presence 
in  Scotland,  to  promote  and  secure  its  tranquillity.*     How  much  cause  Edward 
had  for  such  confidence  may  be  inferred,  not  only  from  the  entire  absence  of 

1  Palgrave'a  Documents  and  Records,  Scot-  3  Ryder's  FaJera,  vol.  ii.  pp.  45,  54. 
land,  vol.  i.  p.  34S. 

2  Rymer's  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  pp.  63,  68,  79.  ^  Ihid.  pp.  141,  158,  172,  190. 
VOL.  I. 


success  in  Lamberton's  mission,  but  from  the  fact  that,  a  few  days  after  he 
had  been  intrusted  with  the  commission  to  conchide  a  truce  with  the  Scots, 
he  presided  over  a  general  council  of  the  Scottish  clergy  held  in  the  cliurch 
of  the  Friars  Minorites  at  Dundee.  His  patriotic  colleague,  Wishart,  Bishop 
of  Glasgow,  was  also  present,  and  a  document  was  drawn  up  asserting 
and  defending  the  right  of  Eobert  Bruce  to  the  throne,  acknowledging  him 
as  the  lawful  and  crowned  king  of  Scotland,  engaging  to  defend  him,  and 
maintain  the  liberties  and  independence  of  the  country  against  all  enemies, 
and  declaring  all  contraveners  of  their  declaration  guilty  of  treason.^ 
This  being  a  conclave  of  clergy,  it  seems  probable  that  it  would  be  secret, 
and  its  enactments  unknown  save  to  the  King  of  Scotland  and  his  chief 
adherents,  otherwise  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  the  continued  confidence 
of  the  English  king  in  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews.  The  business  of  the 
truce  seems  to  have  been  attended  to  afterwards,  but  it  is  said  that  the  Scots 
insisted  on  receiving  a  good  round  sum  of  money  before  consenting  to  the 

The  breathing  space  was  but  short.  Bruce  and  his  warlike  followers 
were  too  eager  to  see  the  complete  emancipation  of  their  country  to  risk 
delays,  and  laying  siege  to  Perth,  provoked  Edward  to  further  invasions. 
Four  expeditions  successively  entered  Scotland,  two  of  which  were  led  by 
the  English  king  in  person;  but  Bruce  was  not  to  be  found,  and  as  the 
country  had  no  entertainment  for  such  guests,  especially  as  it  was  suffer- 
ing from  a  severe  famine,  the  invaders  were  compelled  to  return  almost 
as  they  came.  It  was  now  Bruce's  opportunity,  rendered  all  the  more 
favourable  by  dissensions  between  Edward  and  his  nobles.  Collecting  his 
forces  from  their  scattered  retreats,  Bruce,  about  the  middle  of  August  1311, 
made  a  sudden  descent  upon  the  Xorth  of  England.     Entering  by  the  Solway, 

^  Acts    of   the   Parliaments   of    Scotland,  -  Tytler'a    History    of    Scotland,    vol.    i. 

vol.  L  p.  4G0.  p.  257. 


he  burnt  and  laid  waste  all  GiUsland,  a  large  portion  of  Tyndale  and  the 
town  of  Haltwhistle,  returning  after  eight  days  with  a  great  booty.  In  the 
following  month  a  second  invasion  was  made,  this  time  tlu-ough  Xorthuni- 
berland  to  Durham,  and  so  unexpected  was  tbe  assault  that  most  of  the 
inhabitants  were  surprised  asleep  in  bed.  Douglas  was  despatched  hence  to 
Hartlepool  and  returned  with  numerous  spoils,  including  many  of  the 
burgesses  and  their  wives,  wlio  had  to  pay  heavily  before  receiving  their 
liberty.  This  expedition  lasted  for  iifteen  days,  and  was  characterised  by  great 
severity.  Warned  by  the  fate  of  their  neighbours,  the  inhabitants  of  Northum- 
berland sent  messengers  to  Bruce  begging  a  truce  of  a  few  months'  duration, 
for  which  they  agreed  to  pay  him  two  thousand  pounds.'^  These  invasions 
were  repeated  in  the  following  year,  when  Hexham  and  Corbridge  were  burnt, 
and  Durham  was  again  visited,  probably  by  Douglas,  as  Bruce  remained  at 
Corbridge.  The  attack  was  made  on  a  market  day,  so  that  the  spoils  were 
vastly  increased,  and  after  much  loss  of  life  and  property,  the  inhabitants 
purchased  a  brief  truce  for  the  payment  of  two  thousand  pounds,  and  per- 
mission to  the  Scots  to  march  through  the  district  unmolested  whenever  they 
pleased.  Northumberland,  Cumberland,  Coupland,  and  "Westmoreland  pur- 
chased immunity  for  the  same  period,  namely,  till  midsummer  following,  at 
the  same  rate,  and  as  the  money  could  not  be  obtained  at  once,  they  gave 
hostages  for  its  payment.  Nor  was  it  forgotten  to  repeat  the  visit  on  the 
expiry  of  that  truce.- 

An  attempt  was  made  by  Bruce  upon  the  town  of  Berwick-upon-Tweed, 
which,  but  for  the  barking  of  a  dog,  would  probably  have  succeeded.  The 
garrison  was  alarmed  in  time,  and  repelled  the  invasion.  Other  fortresses 
were  not  so  fortunate,  and  while  Perth  fell  by  the  wit  and  stratagem  of  Bruce, 
and  Edinburgh  by  the  daring  of  Eandolph,  the  strong  and  important  fortress 

1  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  pp.  216,  217  ;  '^  Chronicon  de    Lanercost,   pp.  219,    220, 

Hemingburgh's  Chronicle,  p.  294.  222. 


of  Roxburgh  owed  its  reacquisition  by  Scotland  to  the  ingenuity  and  prowess 
of  Sir  James  Douglas.  It  lay  in  the  district  which  had  been  assigned  to 
him  as  the  special  field  of  his  labours,  and  Douglas  was  not  the  man  to 
leave  anything  undone  which  would  tend  to  the  success  of  his  mission. 
When  the  force  of  arms  was  not  likely  to  succeed,  he  was  as  fertile  in 
stratagem  as  he  was  courageous  in  combat. 

The  ruse  resorted  to  in  the  taking  of  this  castle,  as  related  by  Barbour 
and  others,  approaches  the  ridiculous.  Choosing  an  occasion  on  which  the 
garrison  were  likely  to  be  engaged  in  the  enjoyments  of  a  religious  festivity, 
tl\e  evening  of  Shrove  Tuesday,  the  27th  or  28th  of  February  1312-13, 
Douglas  caused  his  trusty  followers  to  don  black  gowns  over  their  mail,  and 
imitate  his  example.  Throwing  himself  upon  all-fours  in  the  darkening 
twilight,  he  slowly  approached  the  castle.  The  band  were  observed  from  the 
walls,  but  so  well  was  the  assumed  character  sustained,  that  the  sentinel 
merely  observed  to  his  comrade  that  at  least  one  of  the  neighbouring 
husbandmen  was  bent  on  enjoying  himself,  as  he  had  left  all  his  oxen  out, 
and  was  met  with  the  rejoinder  that  no  doubt  it  was  so,  though  he  ran 
considerable  risk  of  losing  them,  seeing  the  Douglas  was  in  the  vicinity. 

The  black  oxen  at  length  reached  the  foot  of  the  castle  walls.  Here 
they  assumed  new  forms,  and  threw  to  the  summit  of  the  wall  a  strong 
hempen  ladder  fitted  with  an  iron  hook,  made  specially  for  this  expedition 
by  one  of  Douglas's  followers,  Simon  of  the  Leadhouse,  who  was  also  the 
first  to  ascend.  Attracted  by  the  click  of  the  iron  on  the  wall,  one  of  the 
soldiers  on  guard  rushed  to  the  spot,  and  attempted  to  unfix  the  ladder  on 
which  the  invaders  were  now  ascending.  One  deadly  blow  of  Simon's  knife 
terminated  the  attempt,  and  the  body  was  thrown  over  the  wall  for  the 
encouragement  of  his  comrades.  Another  of  the  garrison  came  up  at  this 
moment,  and  seeing  Leadhouse  standing  alone  in  a  costume  differing  from 
that  of  the  English  soldiery,  at  once  gave  him  battle.     But  he  too  was  over- 


powered.  The  rest  were  engaged  in  jovial  merrymakings  in  the  hall,  quite 
unsuspicious  of  danger,  when  their  mirth  was  rudely  interrupted.  The  cry 
of  "Douglas!  Douglas!"  resounded  through  the  chamber,  and  the  unarmed 
and  defenceless  revellers  were  mercilessly  slain.  The  captain  of  the  castle, 
Gilmyn  de  Fiennes,  succeeded  with  a  few  of  his  men  in  reaching  the  tower, 
which  they  barricaded  and  held  for  a  short  time  against  the  Scots.  But, 
after  receiving  a  severe  wound  in  the  face,  De  Fiennes  capitulated,  on  con- 
dition of  being  permitted  to  pass  in  safety  with  his  men  into  England.  He 
was  accordingly  escorted  to  the  Borders,  but  only  to  die  shortly  afterwards 
from  the  efiects  of  his  wound.  Roxburgh  Castle  was  then  destroyed  by 
Brace's  orders,  and  this  measure  had  the  effect  of  reducing  the  whole  of 
Teviotdale  to  his  allegiance.^ 

Edward  Bruce,  the  brave  and  chivalrous  brother  of  Kinc:  Eobert,  bore  no 
small  share  in  the  victorious  progress  of  the  Scots  towards  their  final  emanci- 
pation from  English  thraldom.  It  was  to  a  somewhat  rash  challenge 
thrown  out  by  him  to  the  English  governor  of  Stirling  that  the  eventful 
battle  of  Baunockburn  was  due.  That  battle  was  fousiht  on  24th  June 
1314,  in  the  vicinity  of  Stirling,  where  Bruce  with  his  staunch  commanders, 
Randolph,  Edward  Bruce,  Douglas,  and  Walter  the  High  Steward,  and  his 
army  of  thirty  thousand  men,  chiefly  infantry,  had  previously  posted  them- 
selves to  await  the  arrival  of  the  English.  The  left  wing  was  intrusted  to 
Douglas  and  Walter  the  High  Steward,  Randolph  being  in  command  of  the 
centre,  Edward  Bruce  in  command  of  the  right  wing,  while  Bruce  himself 
remained  with  the  reserve  of  cavalry. 

The  English  host,  estimated  at  one  hundred  thousand  men,  had  reached 
Falkirk,  and  were  beginning  the  last  stage  of  their  march.  Douglas  and  Sir 
Robert  Keith,  Marischal,  were  despatched  by  King  Eobert  to  reconnoitre,  and 
came  back  with  the  report  of  the  vastness  and  splendour  of  the  advancing 

1  Barbour's  Bruce,  pp.  232-237. 


army.  This  information,  however,  was  not  imparted  to  the  Scottish  troops, 
though  it  served  to  make  their  leaders  more  wary  and  cautious.  On  the  day 
preceding  the  decisive  struggle,  the  two  armies  came  into  each  other's  view, 
and  a  collision  took  place  the  same  day,  in  which  was  strongly  brought  out 
the  generosity  of  Sir  James  Douglas.  King  Edward  of  England  had  des- 
patched a  strong  body  of  cavalry,  under  the  command  of  Sir  liobert  Clifford, 
to  relieve  the  English  garrison  in  Stirling  Castle.  Clifford,  unobserved  by 
the  Scots,  was  well  on  his  way  to  the  castle,  when  the  watchful  eye  of  Bruce 
detected  the  attempt,  and  Randolph,  whose  duty  it  appears  to  have  been  tu 
frustrate  any  such  efforts,  was  gently  chid  by  his  royal  uncle  for  his 
neglect,  Eandolph  immediately  set  off  to  repair  the  eiTor,  and  a  sharp 
skirmish  ensued  between  his  party  and  that  of  Clifford.  Douglas,  who 
stood  with  Bruce  watching  the  encounter,  begged  hard  for  leave  to  go  to  his 
assistance,  but  Bruce  refused,  fearing  to  break  up  his  lines,  until  Douglas, 
no  longer  able  to  stand  by  and  see  his  friend  worsted,  and  perhaps  slain, 
insisted  on  going  to  his  aid.  He  obtained  a  reluctant  permission.  But 
before  he  had  gone  half-way  he  saw  that  Eandolph  had  ah'eady  secured 
victory,  and,  unwilling  to  detract  from  the  honour  due  to  the  victor,  he 
returned  with  his  men  without  offering  assistance. 

Before  the  engagement  on  the  following  day  Douglas,  with  Walter  the 
High  Steward,  and  many  others,  received  the  honour  of  knighthood  in  presence 
of  the  army.  The  battle  of  Bannockburn  has  often  been  described  in  works 
of  general  history,  as  well  as  in  special  accounts,  and  need  not  be  narrated 
here.  Details  of  his  personal  prowess  have  not  been  handed  down,  but  vre 
may  be  sure  that  Douglas  bore  his  full  share  in  the  action  all  through  that 
eventful  day ;  and  when  the  English  host  had  given  way,  and  their  king 
sought  safety  in  flight,  Douglas  begged  and  obtained  leave  to  pursue  him. 
With  but  sixty  horsemen  he  started  in  the  wake  of  the  royal  fugitive,  \\ho 
was  surrounded  by  five  hundred.      On  the  way  Douglas  was  joined  by  a 


kinsman  of  his  own,  Sir  Laurence  of  Abernethy,  who  until  then  had  adhered 
to  Edward,  and  was  on  his  way  to  join  the  English  army  with  a  small 
contingent  of  eighty  men.  On  being  informed  by  Sir  James  of  Douglas  of 
the  result  of  the  battle,  he  at  once  transferred  his  allegiance  to  King  Eobert, 
and  joined  in  the  pursuit  of  his  late  master,  AVith  his  small  company, 
Douglas  did  not  deem  it  prudent  to  risk  an  open  attack  on  King  Edward's 
escort,  but  by  keeping  close  on  their  rear  and  cutting  off  any  who  lagged  or 
straggled,  he  forced  them  to  speed  their  course.  The  retreating  party  were 
overtaken  at  Linlithgow,  and  a  halt  for  rest  was  made  at  Winchburgh,  but 
Douglas,  by  hovering  on  the  outskirts  of  the  English  camp,  obliged  them 
to  make  it  of  very  short  duration.  The  flight  was  then  continued  to 
Dunbar,  where  the  Earl  of  ]March  received  King  Edward  into  his  fortress, 
while  his  escort,  still  followed  by  their  pursuers,  only  found  refuge  in 
Berwick-upon-Tweed.  But  the  castle  of  Dunbar  was  no  secure  refuge  for 
the  English  king,  and  he  was  fain  to  escape  from  Scotland  in  a  small  boat 
furnished  by  his  host. 

Though  practically  deciding  the  long  contested  question  whether  or  not 
Scotland  should  be  independent  of  England,  the  battle  of  Bannockburn  did 
not  conclude  hostilities  between  the  two  nations.  On  the  motion  of  Bruce, 
negotiations  for  peace  had  been  entered  into,^  but  failed,  and  for  thirteen 
yeai-s  an  intermittent  warfare  was  still  waged.  To  Sir  James  of  Douglas 
was  committed  the  difficult  task  of  clearing  and  guarding  the  marches,  and 
to  no  knight  more  brave  or  more  devoted  to  his  country  could  this  work 
have  been  intrusted.  His  personal  prowess  and  daring  were  such  that 
while  his  own  followers  were  inspirited  and  animated  by  his  example,  the 
English  were  inspired  with  terror  at  his  appearance,  and  even  at  the  mention 
of  his  name.  Mainly  through  his  efforts  the  attempts  of  the  English  to 
regain  the  prestige  they  had  lost  at  Bannockburn  were  defeated,  and  a 
1  Rotuli  Scoti^E,  vol.  i.  pp.  131-133. 


succession  of  brilliant  victories  added  to  his  country's  battle-roll.  He  was 
esteemed,  says  Froissart,  "  the  bravest  and  most  enterprising  knight  in  the 
two  kingdoms,"  and  Barbour  adds  that  the  dread  of  his  name  was  so  great 
in  England,  and  especially  in  the  Marches,  that  mothers  used  the  name  of 
the  "  Blak  Doutilas  "  to  frighten  their  children  with.^ 

About  the  beginning  of  August,  Edward  Bruce,  Douglas,  and  John  of 
Soules,  at  the  head  of  a  large  army,  made  a  raid  into  England,  near  Berwick, 
and  passed  through  Northumberland  and  Durham  to  the  river  Tees,  even 
crossing  it  and  penetrating  to  the  town  of  Richmond.  Their  course  was 
marked  by  fire  and  slaughter,  the  inhabitants  of  the  invaded  districts  fleeing 
to  the  woods  and  castles  for  refuge,  or  with  their  cattle  and  sheep  being 
driven  before  the  Scottish  soldiers.  Durham  and  the  surrounding  district, 
however,  escaped  the  flames  by  purchasing  immunity  for  a  large  sum. 
The  incursion  appears  to  have  been  made  in  several  detachments  for  the 
sake  of  covering  a  larger  area,  but  in  returning  the  Scots  united  their 
forces  at  Richmond,  and  went  back  by  Swaledale  and  Stanmoor,  burning 
Brough,  Appleby,  Kirkoswald  and  other  towns,  and  destroying  the  crops. 
The  inhabitants  of  Coupland  followed  the  example  set  by  Durham,  and 
secured  exemption  on  this  occasion  by  sending  messengers  with  a  large 

A  few  months'  rest  followed,  during  which  Douglas  attended  the  Parlia- 
ment held  by  King  Robert  Bruce  at  Cambuskenneth,  in  the  early  part  of 
November,^  when  an  important  Act  was  passed  regarding  those  Scots  who 

^  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  360.    Some  of  the  old  and  to  her  terror  she  saw  the  Douglas  by  her 

chronicles  relate  an  incident  of  the  siege  of  side.  -  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  228. 

Roxburgh:  A  soldier's  wife  quieting  her  child  ^  Acts  of  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland,  vol.  i. 

with  this  threat,  but  finding  it  have  the  con-  p.  464.     Douglas  was  a  witness  to  charters 

trary  effect,  hushed  it  with  the  assurance  that  granted  on  this  occasion. — Eegistrum  de  Dun- 

the  Black  Douglas  should  not  get  it.     "  You  fermelyn,   p.    229  ;    and    Miscellany   of   the 

are  not  so  sure  of  that,"  said  a  strange  voice,  Spalding  Club,  vol.  ii.  p.  211. 


had  not  yet  tendered  their  allegiance  to  Bruce,  and  then,  in  the  end  of 
December,  the  Scots  made  another  descent  upon  the  northern  counties  of 
England.  Entering  by  Tyndale  they  spread  thence  eastward  towards  New- 
castle and  westward  to  Haltwhistle,  and  before  leaving  Tyndale  they  obliged 
the  inhabitants  to  do  homage  to  the  King  of  Scotland.  They  also  subdued 
Gillsland  and  the  surrounding  country,  destroyed  Northumberland  a  second 
time,  and  compelled  the  county  of  Cumberland  to  pay  to  King  Eobert  Bruce 
six  hundred  merks  as  tribute  for  the  six  months  between  25th  December 
1314  and  the  24th  June  1315.1 

Shortly  after  this  Douglas  accompanied  Bruce  to  the  west  of  Scotland, 
and  was  present  in  Dumbarton  at  the  granting  of  the  privilege  of  girth 
or  sanctuary  to  Malcolm,  fifth  Earl  of  Lennox,  in  return  for  his  constancy 
and  support  both  in  Bruce's  peril  and  now  in  his  triumph.'-  He  then  went 
Avith  the  king  to  Ayr,  where  an  important  Parliament  was  held  to  settle 
the  succession  to  the  crown.  The  meeting  took  place  on  the  26th  of  April, 
and  Douglas  is  proved  to  have  been  present  by  witnessing  several  charters  at 
the  same  place  on  1st  May  following.^ 

The  conquest  of  Ireland  as  a  kingdom  for  Edward  Bruce,  Earl  of 
Carrick,  having  been  resolved  on,  a  portion  of  the  Scottish  army  was 
despatched  thither  under  his  leadership,  and  that  of  Thomas  Eandolph, 
Earl  of  Moray.  Bruce  and  Douglas  remained  in  Scotland.^  On  the 
return  of  the  ships  which  had  conveyed  the  troops  to  Ireland,  Bruce  fitted 
out  an  expedition  against  the  "Western  Islands  of  Scotland,  and  personally 
taking  its  command,  with  Walter,  the  High  Steward  of  Scotland,  who  had 
just  become  the  king's  son-in-law  by  his  marriage  with  his  daughter  Marjory, 
he  speedily  subdued  his  old  enemy  John  of  Lorn,  and  the  minor  Highland 

1  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  230.  '  Munimenta  de  Melros,  vol.    ii.  pp.  3S0- 

2  The  Lennox,  by  William  Fraser,  vol.  i.       382. 

p.  236.  *  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  i>.  230. 

VOL.  L  R 


and  Island  chiefs,  who  ]iad  lent  tlie  Lord  of  Argyll  their  aid.^  Douglas,  on 
the  other  hand,  returned  to  the  Borders,  and  collecting  his  men,  made  a 
third  raid  into  the  English  territor}"  (about  29th  June  1315),  ravaging  the 
bishopric  of  Durham  and  the  town  of  Hartlepool,  the  inhabitants  of  the 
latter  place  escaping  to  sea  in  their  boats  on  his  approach.  He  burned  no 
towns  on  this  occasion,  being  satisfied  with  taking  a  very  large  booty.^ 

It  was  next  resolved  to  lay  siege  to  the  strong  English  fortress  of 
Carlisle.  To  effect  this  Bruce  and  Douglas  joined  their  forces,  and 
mustering  a  considerable  army,  arrived  at  Carlisle  about  the  2 2d  of  July. 
Bruce,  it  was  commonly  reported,  had  vowed  that  he  would  eat  no  flesh 
until  he  had  avenged  himself  on  the  wardens  of  Carlisle.^  This,  if  true, 
was  probably  in  return  for  the  ignominious  and  cruel  fate  to  which 
his  two  brothers,  Thomas  and  Alexander  (the  latter  being  at  the  time 
Dean  of  Glasgow),  had  been  subjected  in  that  city.  Thomas  was  dragged 
through  Carlisle  tied  to  horses'  tails,  and,  \vith  his  brother,  was  afterwards 
hanged  and  beheaded,  their  heads  and  bodies  being  exposed  on  the  tower 
and  gates  of  the  city.'*  At  least  the  remembrance  of  these  things  would 
add  fuel  to  the  fury  of  the  Scots,  and  for  ten  days  they  held  the  city 
and  its  citadel  in  strict  siege,  on  each  day  making  an  assault  on  one  of  the 
three  gates,  or  on  all  three  simultaneously. 

The  citizens,  however,  knowing  that  quarter  would  not  be  given,  exerted 
themselves  to  the  utmost,  and  sent  such  showers  of  darts,  arrows,  and  stones 
from  the  walls  upon  their  assailants,  that  the  Scots  remarked  that  surely 
stones  were  multiplied,  or  grew  within  these  walls.  On  the  fifth  day  of  the 
siege  the  Scots  constructed  a  machine  to  project  large  stones  a^-aiust  one  of 
the  gates  and  the  wall,  but  this  did  little  or  no  injury,  save  killinfr  one  of  the 

^  Barbour's  Bnice,  p.  319.  -  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  230. 

3  Chronicon  Walter!  de  Hemingburgh,  vol.  ii.  pp.  294,  295. 
*  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  205. 

THE  SIEGE  OF  CARLISLE,   1315.  131 

defenders.  They  next  constructed  a  large  wooden  tower  so  high  that  it 
overtopped  the  walls,  but  the  citizens  divining  their  intention,  caused  their 
carpenters  to  erect  a  higher  tower  of  wood  at  the  part  of  the  wall  against 
which  the  assault  was  to  be  directed,  and  the  Scots  seeing  this,  or  unable  to 
move  forward  the  ponderous  erection,  though  mounted  upon  wheels,  over 
the  wet  and  slimy  ground,  did  not  bring  it  into  use. 

Then  the  Scots  made  many  long  ladders  for  scaling  the  walls  at  a 
number  of  places  simultaneously,  and  also  a  machine  called  a  sow  for 
undermining  the  walls.  They  scoured  the  country  for  miles  around,  cutting 
down  the  standing  crops  and  every  growing  thing  they  could  lay  hands 
upon,  which  they  tied  into  bundles,  and  attempted  with  these  to  fill  up 
the  moat  on  the  east  side  of  the  city  in  order  to  secure  a  dryshod  passage 
across  to  the  walls.  Besides  this,  to  span  the  moat,  they  constructed 
long  wooden  bridges  running  upon  wheels,  to  which  cords  were  attached 
for  drawing  them,  and  on  the  ninth  day  of  the  siege,  bringing  all  their 
warlike  instruments  to  bear,  they  made  a  grand  assault  upon  the  whole 
circuit  of  the  walls,  but  especially  upon  the  eastern  side  of  the  city,  A\here 
the  bulk  of  the  Scottish  army  was  massed. 

This  was  but  a  feint,  however,  to  divert  attention  from  what  was  to  be 
the  main  attack.  Sir  James  of  Douglas,  choosing  the  more  daring  and  agde 
of  the  Scottish  forces,  had  stationed  himself  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  city 
at  a  place  where,  on  account  of  the  height  of  the  walls  and  the  difticulty  of 
invasion,  the  citizens  would  naturally  think  no  assault  would  be  attempted,  and 
would  therefore  leave  the  place  comparatively  defenceless.  He  had  provided 
himself  with  long  ladders,  and  to  protect  his  soldiers  while  climbing,  had  posted 
a  strong  force  of  bowmen  to  shoot  down  any  who  might  show  themselves  upon 
the  wall.  While  the  soldiers  leapt  to  the  ladders  and  scaled  the  walls,  the 
shafts  fell  fast  and  thick  upon  and  within  the  walls,  but  through  the  bravery 
of  the  defenders  the  attempt  was  utterly  foiled.     The  ladders  were  pushed 


from  the  walls,  and  many  of  the  Scots  were  slain  and  wounded.  The  other 
attacking  parties  fared  no  better,  as  neither  sow,  ladders,  nor  bridges 
were  of  any  avail,  and  at  last  the  Scots  were  forced  to  raise  the  siege  and 
retire,  which  they  did  on  the  1st  August,  leaving  behind  them  their  warlike 
engines  and  several  important  prisoners. 

During  the  siege  they  are  said  to  have  laid  waste  and  given  to  the 
flames  all  Allerdale,  Coupland,  and  Westmoreland,  taking  an  immense 
booty  in  cattle  and  other  property.^  It  was  during  this  time  also  that 
Douglas  visited  Egremont  and  the  Priory  of  St.  Bees,  in  Westmoreland, 
plundering  the  church  and  burning  the  houses  of  the  Prior  at  Cleator 
and  Staneburn.- 

Nothing  daunted  by  their  repulse  at  Carlisle,  Bruce  and  Douglas  resolved 
to  make  another  attack  upon  the  towTi  of  Berwick,  and  an  expedition  was 
secretly  organised  to  attack  it  both  by  sea  and  land.  The  point  chosen  for 
assault  was  a  spot  between  the  Bridge-house  and  the  Castle,  beside  the  sea, 
where  there  was  no  wall.  Unfortunately  for  the  enterprise  the  night  was 
clear  and  moonlit,  and  through  the  vigilance  of  the  watch  the  attempt  was 
discovered  before  an  entrance  had  been  effected.  The  Scots  were  driven 
back,  and  Douglas  himself  is  said  to  have  escaped  with  difficulty  in  a  small 

But  with  such  leaders  the  Scots  never  knew  wdiat  it  was  to  be  beaten, 
and  if  the  fortresses  were  too  strong  for  them  they  had  other  means  by  which 
they  could  insure  success.  Negotiations  for  a  truce  had  passed  once  more 
between  the  two  realms,*  only  to  be  nipped  in  the  bud,  apparently  by  the 
refusal  of  Edward  to  recognise  Bruce  as  King  of  Scotland,  and  hostilities 
were  accordingly  resumed.  With  a  fleet  on  the  one  hand,  the  Scots  threat- 
ened the  principality  of  Wales,  which  had  just  been  forced  to  submit  to  the 

^  Chrouicou  de  Lanercost,  pp.  230-232.  ^  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  232. 

'  Leland's  Collectanea,  vol.  i.  p.  24.  *  Rymer's  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  p.  289. 


English  Kiiig;^  and  on  the  other,  they  sent,  about  midsummer  (June  24, 
131G)  a  strong  force,  probably  under  the  command  of  Douglas,  into  England. 
On  this  occasion  they  again  invaded  the  town  of  Eichmond,  and  had  begun 
their  work  of  devastation,  when  the  nobles  who  held  the  Castle  offered  them 
a  large  sum  of  money  to  refrain  from  burning  the  town  and  the  surrounding 
district.  This  the  Scots  accepted,  but  they  merely  sought  pastures  new, 
and  penetrating  England  for  sixty  miles  in  a  westerly  direction  to  Furness, 
destroyed  everything  in  their  way,  and  gave  the  entire  district  to  the  flames. 
Furness  they  had  never  before  reached,  and  they  found  not  only  great  spoil 
of  cattle,  which  they  carried  thence  with  a  large  number  of  prisoners  of  both 
sexes,  but  an  abundance  of  iron — a  commodity  then  so  scarce  in  their  own 
country  that  they  are  said  to  have  been  overjoyed  at  the  discovery .^ 

At  the  urgent  entreaty  of  his  brother  Edward,  King  Robert  Bruce  set  out 
for  Ireland  to  his  assistance,^  and  appointed  Sir  James  Douglas  and  Walter 
the  High  Steward,  wardens  of  the  kingdom  in  his  absence.*  Douglas  held 
at  this  time,  also,  the  high  office  of  Justiciar  of  Lothian,^  and  was  warden  of 
Jedburgh.^  Taking  advantage  of  Bruce's  absence,  the  English  king  resolved 
once  more  to  attempt  the  retrieval  of  his  fortunes  in  Scotland ;  but  Douglas 
was  too  experienced  and  wary  a  warrior  to  be  taken  unawares,  and  Bruce 
had  not  left  the  care  of  his  hard-won  kingdom  in  the  hands  of  one  in 
whom  he  had  not  the  most  complete  confidence.  Douglas  indeed  seems 
to  have  anticipated  some  such  attempt,  and  to  have  taken  up  his  quarters 
in  a  position  where  he  would  be  ready  for  any  emergency.  The  place 
chosen  was  the  liaugh  of  Lintalee,  on  the  banks  of  the  river  Jed,  at  a 
point  where  his  camp  would  have  the  natural  protection  of  the  river  and  a 

^  Rotuli  Scotiae,  vol.  i.  p.  159.  *  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  361. 

^  Chronicou  de  Lanercost,  pp.  232,  233. 

o  ^T_       .  ^ir  li.  1       TT      •     1        ,  ^  Munimenta  de  Melros,  vol.  ii.  p.  3S5. 

'  Chromcon    Waiten     de     Hemingburgh, 

vol.  ii.  p.  295.  6  jiia,  p  382. 


deep  ravine  on  two  sides,  while  on  the  third  a  strong  double  rampart  was 
constructed.  Below  the  camp  in  the  face  of  the  cliff  was  a  large  cave,  con- 
sisting of  three  apartments,  which,  in  the  event  of  a  sudden  surprise,  would 
have  afforded  at  least  a  temporary  refuge.^  Here  Douglas  caused  to  be 
erected  what  Barbour  calls  a  "  fair  manor,"  and  having  stocked  it  abundantly 
with  provisions  and  other  means, 

"  till  mak  gud  cher  till  his  men,"  - 

he  awaited  the  course  of  events. 

Aymer  de  Yaleuce,  Earl  of  Pembroke,  the  former  English  guardian  of 
Scotland,  had,  after  the  battle  of  Bauuockburn,  been  appointed  warden  and 
captain  of  all  the  country  between  the  rivers  Trent  and  Tweed,  Roxburgh 
being  the  assigned  limit.^  He  began  by  collecting  all  the  men  of  Tyndale, 
and  first  laid  waste  some  parts  of  Northumberland,  not  sparing,  it  is  said,  a 
single  blade.  As  soon,  however,  as  he  entered  Scotland,  and  encountered  a 
few  Scots,  his  men  at  once  turned  and  fled,  and  were  pursued  for  a 
considerable  distance,  while  many  were  slain.^  After  the  siege  of  Carlisle, 
Aymer  de  Valence  was  partly  superseded  by  the  appointment  of  Thomas, 
Earl  of  Lancaster,  as  superior  captain  over  the  same  territory.^  Under 
him  a  general  muster  of  the  English  had  been  proclaimed  for  the  2-l:th 
of  June,  at  Newcastle,  but  was  prorogued  by  royal  mandate  till  the  feast  of 
St.  Lawrence  (10th  September  131G).*^  As  has  already  been  seen,  the  Scots 
observed  the  first  day,  and  kept  the  muster  at  Eichmond  and  Eurness,  but 
the  English  forces  were  not  present.  By  the  departure  of  Bruce  and  two  of 
his  brave  commanders.  Sir  Edward  Bruce  and  Eandolph,  an  opportunity  was 

^  Origines  Parochiales  Scotiit,  vol.  i.  p.  3S6.  *  Chronicon    Walter!     de     Hemingburgh, 

vol  ii.  p.  295. 
-  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  372.  *  Rotuli  Scotia;,  vol.  i.  p.    149,  dated  Sth 

August  1315. 
^  Rotuli  Scotise,  vol.  i.  p.  149.  ^  Rymer's  Ftedera,  vol.  ii.  p.  291. 

ENCOUyTER   WITH  RICHMOND  AT  LI  NT  ALEE,   131 G.         13.3 

given  which  the  English  did  not  overlook,  and  a  large  army  was  summoned 
by  Edward  the  Second,  in  which  he  included  his  Gascon  vassals,  to  meet  at 
Newcastle-on-Tyne  in  the  first  week  of  October.^  The  king,  however,  did 
not  appear,  and  after  waiting  for  some  time  beyond  the  appointed  day,  the 
army  was  disbanded." 

Douglas  meanwhile  was  passing  the  time  at  Lintalee,  well  informed,  no 
doubt,  of  what  was  taking  place  in  England ;  and  learning  from  his  scouts 
that  the  Earl  of  Arundel,  with  Sir  Thomas  Eichmond,  instead  of  returning 
home,  had  crossed  the  borders  with  a  force  of  ten  thousand  men,  he 
determined  to  give  battle.  Eichmond,  says  Barbour,  envied  the  fame  of 
Douglas,  and  resolved  to  measure  swords  with  him  on  the  first  opportunity. 
He  thought  that  the  renowned  warrior  was  only  feasting  at  Lintalee,  and  his 
avowed  intention  was  to  cut  down  the  forest  of  Jedburgh,  for  which  he  armed 
his  men  \\\i\\  wood-axes.  Douglas  had  only  fifty  men-at-arms  and  a  body 
of  archers;  but  he  knew  that  Eichmond  would  require  to  march  through 
a  narrow  pass  on  his  way,  and  he  resolved  to  meet  him  tliere.  The  old 
chronicler  likens  the  place  to  a  shield,  broad  at  the  entiy,  but  gradually 
narrowing  to  a  point,  where  there  was  not  "  ane  pennystane-cast  of  bred," 
and  wooded  on  either  side.  Here  Douglas  plaited  together  the  young  birches 
which  grew  on  the  sides  of  the  pass,  making  it  practically  impervious,  and 
placing  his  archers  in  a  hollow  on  one  side,  with  directions  to  shoot  on  a 
given  signal,  he  himself,  with  his  armed  men,  took  up  a  similar  position  on 
the  other,  and  awaited  Eichmond's  approach.  The  English  leader  came  on 
unwittingly,  until  within  bowshot  of  the  ambuscade,  when  Douglas  raised  his 
terrible  war-cry,  the  signal  for  the  archers  to  shoot,  and  while  the  English  were 
disconcerted  with  the  showers  of  arrows  falling  among  them,  Douglas  and  his 
small  band  spurred  upon  the  English  host.  Instiuctively  the  rival  leaders 
sought  each  other,  but  Eichmond  was  no  match  for  the  impetuous  Douglas, 

^  Rymer's  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  pp.  295,  296.  -'  Clironicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  233. 

136  Sin  JAME:s  of  DOUaLAS,  LORD  OF  DOUGLAS. 

and  fell,  stabbed  to  the  heart  with  his  opponent's  dagger.  Seizing  the  furred 
cap  which  surmounted  the  helmet  of  Eichmond,  worn  by  him,  it  is  said,  as  a 
badge  of  connection  with  the  ducal  house  of  Brittany,^  Douglas  cut  his  way 
througli  the  English  army,  and  disappeared  into  the  recesses  of  the  forest. 
Seeing  their  leader  slain,  and  discomfited  by  this  sudden  attack,  the 
English  withdrew  to  a  place  of  safety.- 

While  Douglas  was  engaged  in  this  skirmish,  he  learned  that  a  priest 
named  Ellis  had,  with  three  hundred  men,  taken  possession  of  his  place  of 
Lintalee.  He  and  his  companions  at  once  proceeded  thither,  found  the 
audacious  intruders  feasting  on  what  was  not  intended  for  them,  and  with 
the   proverbial   ferocity   of   hungry  and   angry  men,  to  use  the  words   of 


"  With  suerdis  that  scharply  schar 
Tha  servit  tham  full  egirly." 

Scarce  one  escaped  to  tell  the  tale  to  the  English  host  encamped  at  somt; 
distance ;  and  they,  when  they  heard  the  fate  of  their  companions,  left  the 
forest  standing  as  it  was,  and  hastened  back  over  the  border.^ 

On  another  occasion,  while  Douglas  was  encamped  in  the  forest,  Edmund 
de  Caliou,  a  Gascon  knight,  made  a  raid  from  Berwick,  of  which  he  was 
governor,  into  the  lower  parts  of  Teviotdale  and  the  Merse,  and  having  secured 
a  considerable  booty  in  cattle  retraced  his  steps,  driving  his  spoils  before  him. 
They  were  observed  by  Sir  Adam  Gordon,  who  informed  Douglas  of  what  had 
taken  place,  and  suggested  that,  if  they  were  pursued  at  once,  the  cattle  might 
be  retaken.  Douglas  readily  consented,  and  summoning  such  of  his  men  as 
were  at  hand,  instantly  started  in  their  track.  Ere  long  the  raiders  were 
discerned  in  the  distance,  who,  on  discovering  that  they  were  pursued,  sent 
forward  the  cattle  under  the  care  of  some  countrymen,  and  forming  them- 

^  Hailes'  Annals,  voL  iL  p.  82. 

*  Barbour's  Bruce,  pp.  372-37G  ;  Scalacronica,  p.  143.         '  Barbour's  Bruce,  pp.  373-377- 


selves  into  a  compact  body,  awaited  the  arrival  of  Douglas.  Perceiving  their 
design,  and  that  the  Gascon  had  a  force  twice  as  numerous  as  his  owu,  Sir 
James  encouraged  his  men  to  the  conflict.  He  unfurled  his  banner,  bidding 
his  men  take  advantage  of  a  neighbouring  ford  to  aid  their  attack,  and  as 
Caliou  and  his  men  approached,  at  once  gave  battle.  Singling  out  the  Gascon 
leader,  as  it  was  his  wont  to  do,  Douglas  was  soon  hotly  engaged,  and  his 
dauntless  courage  so  inspired  his  followers  that  the  Gascon  troops  were  forced 
to  fly,  leaving  their  lord  and  many  of  their  number  dead  upon  the  field.  The 
cattle  were  thereupon  driven  back.  This  fight  is  said  to  have  been  the 
toughest  ever  engaged  in  by  Douglas,  as  he  had  so  few  men  at  his  command, 
and  it  increased  his  fame  greatly.^ 

Another  knight  in  England's  service.  Sir  Eobert  Neville,  wroth  that  no 
name  was  in  the  mouths  of  any  for  valour  save  that  of  Douglas,  is  reported 
to  have  exclaimed  openly,  "  What !  is  there  no  one  of  any  worth  save  he  ? 
Ye  speak  of  him  as  if  he  were  without  an  equal.  But  I  avow  before  you 
all  that  if  he  ever  come  into  this  neighbourhood  he  will  also  discover  my 
presence,  or  if  in  war  I  see  his  banner  displayed,  I  shall  certainly  assail  him, 
although  ye  call  him  never  so  brave."  Neville  was  at  this  time  in  Berwick, 
and  the  challenge  having  been  reported  to  Douglas,  he  determined  to  give  the 
knight  an  opportunity  of  acquiring  the  coveted  distinction.  Gathering  his 
men,  he  marched  all  night  to  the  vicinity  of  Berwick,  and  daybreak  beheld 
his  banner  displayed  in  view  of  the  city.  To  attract  the  attention  of  the 
garrison  still  more,  he  sent  some  of  his  men  to  burn  one  or  two  of  the  neigh- 
bouring villages,  with  instructions  to  return  at  once  in  case  of  attack. 

This  brought  Neville  out  of  Berwick  with  a  strong  and  picked  force,  as 
the  city  was  crowded  at  the  time  with  the  inhabitants  of  the  surround- 
ing districts  who  had  taken  refuge  there.  The  English  knight  led  his 
forces  to  the  summit  of  a  hill,  and  addressing  them  said  it  was  his  desire 

^  Barbour's  Bruce,  pp.  351-355. 
VOL,  I.  S 


now  to  put  an  end  for  ever  to  the  disorders  constantly  occasioned  by- 
Douglas,  but  it  was  expedient  to  wait  until  the  Scottish  soldiers  were  dis- 
persed to  foray,  when  they  would  become  an  easy  prey.  Douglas,  however, 
had  no  intention  thus  to  weaken  his  force,  and  seeing  that  the  English,  at 
first  numerically  stronger  than  himself,  were  being  constantly  augmented  by 
fresh  arrivals,  he  resolved  to  give  battle  at  once.  He  accordingly  led  his 
men  up  the  hill  against  his  foes,  and  a  stubborn  contest  ensued.  Douglas 
and  Xe\alle  met  in  the  thickest  of  the  fray,  and  fought  long  together,  but 
the  superior  strength  and  skiU  of  Douglas  prevailed,  and  Xeville  was 
killed.  This  gave  the  Scots  renewed  courage,  and  raising  their  wonted 
battle-cry  they  attacked  the  English  so  impetuously  that  they  broke  and 
fled,  and  were  pursued  by  the  Scots  to  a  considerable  distance.  A  great 
number  of  the  English  were  slain,  and  several  distinguished  prisoners  taken, 
among  whom  were  Sir  Ealph  Neville  and  the  Baron  of  Hilton,  After 
clearing  the  field  of  his  foes,  Douglas  proceeded  at  leisure  to  foray  and 
destroy  the  country  around,  the  spoil  of  which  he  distributed  entirely  among 
his  men,  retaining  nothing  for  himself.^  It  was  this  generous  and  unselfish 
spirit,  along  with  his  considerate  bearing  towards  them  at  all  times,  which 
especially  endeared  him  to  his  followers,  and  made  tliem  willing  to  dare  and 
endure  an}-tliing  and  everything  with  and  for  him. 

When  King  Eobert  Bruce  returned  from  Ireland  to  his  own  kingdom,  it 
was  resolved  to  renew  the  assault  on  Berwick-upon-Tweed,  at  this  time 
the  principal  commercial  port  which  England  possessed.  Eandolph  had 
returned  with  his  royal  uncle,-  but  the  king's  brother,  Edward  Bruce,  having 
been  crowned  King  of  Ireland,  remained  in  his  new  dominions.     He  had 

^  Barbour's  Bruce,   pp.    355-3.59.      Scala-  Durham,  in  a  dispute  as  to  which  should  be 

cronica,  p.   143,     This  chronicle  relates  that  "  le  plus  graunt  meistre." 

Sir  Robert  Neville  had  slain  Kichard  Fitz-  "^  They  were  both  at  Sconeon  1st  June  1317. 

Marmaduke,  cousin  of  King  Robert  Bruce,  at  [Antiquities  of  Aberdeen,  voL  iii,  p.  313.] 

CAPTURE  OF  BERWICK,  1317.  130 

won  his  kiugJom  with  great  bravery;  but  the  English  were  still  able  to 
maintain  a  strong  force  in  the  island,  which  was  increased  until  it  numbered 
tenfold  the  army  at  the  disposal  of  the  new  king.  Yet  even  with  such  over- 
whelming odds  he  did  not  hesitate  to  join  battle,  but  it  was  only  to  meet  an 
untimely  fate  near  Dundalk,  on  5th  October  1318.^  During  the  absence  of 
Bruce  from  Scotland,  the  English  king  had  been  resorting  to  the  unmanly 
expedient  of  procuring  the  interference  of  the  Pope,  desiring  to  accomplish 
by  ecclesiastical  authority  what  he  could  not  do  by  force  of  arms ;  but  to 
such  arguments  neither  Bruce  nor  his  gallant  countrymen  would  for  one 
moment  listen.  Interdicts  followed,  but  were  only  laughed  at  by  the  Scots, 
who,  especially  in  a  matter  of  this  kind,  made  small  scruple  as  to  whether 
their  king  or  the  Pope  had  the  first  claim  to  their  allegiance. 

About  the  middle  of  December,  Bruce  was  lying  with  his  army  about 
twelve  miles  from  the  town  of  Berwick,  busied  with  preparations  for  its 
siege,  when,  through  the  Marischal,  Sir  Piobert  Keith,  he  received  overtures 
from  one  of  the  burgesses  of  that  city  for  its  deliverance  into  his  hands. 
The  English  Governor,  John  de  Witham,  it  is  said,  was  unusually  severe,  and 
had  given  offence  to  not  a  few  of  the  inhabitants.  One  of  these,  named 
Peter  Spalding,-  proposed  betraying  the  city,  and  being  connected  with  the 
Marischal  through  having  married  a  cousin  of  Sir  Piobert,  he  communicated 
his  plans  to  him.  The  burgesses  of  Berwick  took  part  in  guarding  the  walls, 
and  knowing  that  it  would  fall  to  his  lot  to  be  on  watch  at  the  Cow  Gate 
on  a  certain  evening,  Spalding  offered,  to  assist  the  Marischal  in  gaining 
an  entrance. 

Bruce  accepted  the  offer,  and  directed  the  Marischal,  and  also  Douglas 
and  Kandolph,  to  enter  the  city  that  night  by  the  way  indicated,  and  he 
would  join  them  in  the  morning  with  the  main  body  of  the  army.     Under 

1  Tytler's  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  303. 

2  Barbour  calls  him  Sym  of  Spaldiug.     Page  386. 


the  guidance  of  Spalding  the  scaling  of  the  wall  was  successfully  accom- 
plished, the  intruders  keeping  themselves  in  strict  ambush  until  daybreak, 
when  they  intended  to  go  through  the  town  cautiously  and  in  battle  array, 
sending  off  detachments  to  plunder  the  houses  and  deal  with  such  as 
resisted.  No  sooner,  however,  did  day  dawn  than  the  greater  part  of  the 
soldiers  broke  away  from  their  leaders,  and  spread  themselves  all  over 
the  town  to  pillage  at  their  own  hand,  the  result  of  which  was  that 
the  governor  of  the  castle,  Eoger  de  Horsley,  observing  only  a  mere 
handful  of  Scots  in  the  city,  made  a  sortie  from  the  castle,  and  had 
nearly  expelled  the  intruders  again  over  the  walls.  The  bravery  of  the 
leaders,  however,  and  the  courage  of  those  who  rallied  round  them,  was 
successful  in  driving  back  their  assailants  into  the  castle.  Berwick  was  then 
given  up  to  pillage,  and  Bruce  entered  the  city  with  the  rest  of  the  troops. 
The  castle  resisted  for  five  days  and  then  capitulated. 

The  Scots,  to  their  honour,  used  their  triumph  with  moderation,  though 
the  same  city  had  been  the  scene  of  great  cruelty  when  formerly  taken 
by  the  Enghsh.  In  a  bull  of  excommunication  against  Bruce,  the  Pope 
charged  him  with  a  great  slaughter  of  the  inhabitants,  accompanied  with 
inhuman  cruelty.^  But  this  is  denied  by  the  English  historians,  whose 
testimony  was  not  likely  to  err  on  the  side  of  partiality  at  least,-  and  one 
distinctly  affirms  that  though  the  English  were  spoiled  and  expelled,  few  or 
none,  except  those  who  resisted,  were  slain.^  The  lenity  shown  by  Bruce 
and  the  other  Scottish  leaders  is  all  the  more  remarkable  when  it  is 
remembered  what  indignities  they  themselves  had  suffered  at  the  hands  of 
the  English  king.  It  was  in  this  very  place  that  Douglas's  father.  Sir 
William  "  Le  Hardi,"  had  been  imprisoned  in  irons,  and  his  capture  rejoiced 
over  by  his  custodiers.     Perhaps  it  was  in  memory  of  him  that  the  tower  in 

^  Theiner's  Vetera  Monumenta,  p.  205.  Adam  Murimuth.    [History  of  Scotland,  voL  i. 

-  Tytler  mentions  Thomas  de  la  More  and       p.  318.]  ^  Chronicon  deLanercost,  p.  235. 


Berwick,  between  the  castle  and  the  town,  was  named  the  Douglas  Tower 
and  afterwards  bore  that  name,  being  repaired  as  such  in  1357.^  Godscroft 
states  that  the  name  of  the  tower  in  which  Sir  William  was  confined  was 
Hog's  Tower ;  and  it  may  be  that  the  English  themselves  changed  its  name 
in  memory  of  its  distinguished  occupant.  But,  at  any  rate,  so  powerful 
had  the  name  become,  that  it  commanded  the  recognition  of  both  friends 
and  foes,  even  by  memorials  of  this  kind. 

Spalding,  through  whose  instrumentality  the  conquest  of  Berwick  was 
made  so  easy,  was  liberally  rewarded  by  King  Eobert  Bruce  with  the  gift  of 
certain  lands  and  possessions  in  Berwick,  which  at  the  presentee's  request 
were  afterwards  exchanged  for  the  lands  of  Balzeordie  and  Pitmudie,  in 
the  county  of  Forfar,  with  the  keeping  of  the  royal  forest  of  Kilgerry.- 
He  had  formerly  been  in  the  service  of  King  Edward  the  First  in  Gascony,^ 
and  may  not  have  been  trusted  by  the  Scots  in  Berwick.  One  of  the 
English  chroniclers,  Hardyng,*  states  that  he  was  ultimately  slain  by  the 
Scots,  after  his  departure  from  Berwick. 

By  the  capture  of  Berwick  the  Scottish  army  was  enriched  with  a  great 
abundance  of  the  munitions  of  war ;  and  while  the  king,  according  to 
Barbour,  abode  at  Berwick,  he  sent  forward  a  strong  body  of  men,  doubtless 
under  Douglas  and  Piandolph,  to  ravage  Northumberland.  The  Scots  on 
this  occasion  extended  their  inroad  to  Xewcastle-on-Tyne,  and  then 
returned  to  Berwick.  Bruce  resolved  not  to  dismantle  this  town  as  he 
had  done  others,  but  left  it  with  a  strong  garrison  in  the  custody  of  his 
son-in-law,  Walter,  the  High  Steward,  and  then  returned  into  the  Lothians.^ 
Before,  however,  disbanding  their  army  the  Scots  made  another  raid  into 

1  Rotuli  Scotiae,  voL  i.  p.  799.  ^  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  Notes,  p.  420. 

^  History    of     the    Carnegies,     Earls     of  ■*  Chronicle,  Ellis's  etUtion,  p.  308. 

Southesk,  by  William  Eraser,  vol.  i.  p.  xiv  ;  ^  Chronicon   de   Lanercost,   pp,  234,  235  ; 

voL  ii.  p.  482.  Barbour's  Bruce,  pp.  392,  393. 


Eiiglaud  in  the  following  month  of  May,  penetrating  as  far  as  Eipou  and 
Knaresborongh,  which,  with  Skipton,  Northallerton,  and  Eoroughbridge,  was 
given  to  the  flames.  Ripon  was  only  saved  from  a  similar  fate  by  the  pay- 
ment of  ransom  of  a  thousand  marks.  The  Scots  returned  laden  with  booty, 
driving  before  them  a  great  multitude  of  cattle  and  prisoners  of  both  sexes.^ 

Important  political  arrangements  now  demanded  the  attention  of  the 
Scottish  Court.  The  death  of  the  king's  brother.  King  Edward  Bruce,  in 
Ireland,  and  also  of  his  daughter,  the  Princess  Marjory,  after  the  birth  of  her 
only  child,  Eobert  Stewart,  afterwards  King  Robert  the  Second,  rendered  it 
expedient  to  recall  the  Act  of  Settlement  made  at  Ayr  in  1315,  and  to  enact 
a  new  one.  For  this  and  other  legislative  work  a  Parliament  assembled  at 
Scone  on  3d  December  1318,  which,  after  expressing  their  own  allegiance, 
and  enjoining  the  same  upon  the  whole  country,  declared  that  in  the  event  of 
the  kincr's  death  without  surviving  issue  male,  the  succession  should  devolve 
upon  Robert  Stewart.  If  he  succeeded  to  the  crown  before  reaching  majority, 
or  if  any  heir  of  the  king's  own  body  succeeded  while  yet  a  minor,  the  office  of 
tutor  to  the  heir  to  the  throne  was  devolved  upon  Thomas  Randolph,  Earl  of 
Moray,  and  in  the  event  of  his  death,  upon  James,  Lord  of  Douglas,  until  the 
majority  of  the  community  considered  the  heir  able  to  govern  the  kingdom  in 
person.  Both  Randolph  and  Douglas  accepted  the  trust  reposed  in  them, 
and  vowed  upon  the  gospels  and  the  relics  of  the  saints,  faithfully  and 
diligently  to  observe  the  same,  and  to  administer  the  kingdom  for  the  com- 
bined welfare  of  it  and  the  heir  to  the  crown.  The  rest  of  the  Parliament 
took  a  similar  oath,  the  whole  proceedings  being  conducted  with  great 

This  transaction  reflects  the  highest  honour  upon  Douglas,  and  shows, 
on  the  one  hand,  that  he  possessed  not  only  military  qualifications  of  the 
highest  order,  but  also  powerful  administrative  abilities ;  and  on  the  other, 

1  Barbour's  Brace,  p.  236.  -  Acts  of  tLe  Parliaments  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  405. 

A  FFOIXTED  TO  SUCCEED  RA XD  OLPH  IX  THE  EEGEXC  };  1 3 1 8 .     U  3 

the  very  high  appreciation  in  wliich  he  was  held  by  the  entire  nation. 
Eaudolph,  Earl  of  Moray,  was  also  valiant,  but  his  being  chosen  for  the 
regency  was  due  in  part  to  his  blood-relationship  to  Bruce.  Douglas  had  no 
such  claim,  and  owed  his  election  to  this  very  high  position  wholly  to  his 
personal  merits  and  faithful  service  to  his  king  and  country. 

The  loss  of  Berwick  was  not  relished  by  King  Edward  the  Second,  and  he 
wreaked  his  vengeance  on  the  unfortunate  inhabitants,  who,  although  stripped 
of  everything  they  possessed  in  Berwick  by  the  Scots,  were  now  declared  to 
have  forfeited  everything  else  they  had,  on  account  of  their  fault  in  allowing 
the  city  to  be  taken.^  Edward  then  issued  a  summons  to  the  Earl  of 
Lancaster  to  meet  him  at  York,  with  all  his  forces,  on  the  morning  after  St. 
James  the  Apostle's  day  (26th  July),  to  proceed  against  the  Scots ;  but  this 
purpose,  on  account  of  dissensions  between  the  king  and  the  earl,  seems  to 
have  been  laid  aside.-  The  instructions  for  preparation  were,  however, 
renewed  in  December,^  and  Edward,  meanwhile,  used  every  art  to  compass 
the  overthrow  of  his  foes.  He  took  his  case  so  frequently  to  the  Pope,  that 
the  Fioman  Court  must  have  been  weary  of  it,  all  the  more  so  that  all  their 
fulminations  were  unheeded.  He  also  implored  the  Count  of  Flanders,  the 
Duke  of  Brabant,  and  the  towns  of  Newport,  Dunkirk,  and  others,  to  exclude 
the  Scots,  supporting  his  request  with  the  consideration  that  they  were 
excommunicated ;  but  he  was  met  in  some  cases  with  a  courteous  though 
firm  refusal,  while  Eobert,  Count  of  Elanders,  openly  recognised  the  regal 
title  of  Biobert  Bruce.* 

At  length  Edward  resolved  to  strike  a  blow  in  person,  and  from  York, 
where  he  had  been  residing  since  September  1318,  he  issued  orders  in  the 
following  July  for  the  muster  of  a  powerful  army  at  Xewcastle-upon- 
Tyne.     He  enlisted  the  prayers  of  the  clergy  in  his  behalf,  and  for  their 

1  Rymer'a  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  p.  3GU.  3  jj^i^^  p.  330, 

2  Ihid.  p.  365.  ♦  Ihkl  pp.  386-394. 


encouragement,  bestowed  on  many  ecclesiastics  prospectively  a  number  of  the 
Scottish  prebends  and  benefices.^  On  the  15th  August  the  English  army 
crossed  the  Tweed,  and  thoroughly  investing  Berwick,  both  by  sea  and  land, 
made  energetic  preparations  for  carrying  it  by  storm.  The  assaults  were 
carried  out  with  great  determination,  but  the  Scots,  under  the  command  of 
Walter  the  High  Steward,  foiled  every  attempt  to  obtain  an  entrance.  Their 
heroic  defence  is  related  at  length  by  Tytler,^  and  need  not  therefore  be 
repeated  here. 

To  relieve  their  gallant  comrades,  Bruce  and  Douglas  planned  a  raid  into 
England  on  an  extensive  footing,  and  the  latter,  with  Eandolph,  Earl  of  Moray, 
was  despatched  on  this  errand,  at  the  head  of  fifteen  thousand  men,  their  inten- 
tion being  nothing  less  than  to  seize  the  Queen  of  England,  who  had  been  left 
in  supposed  security  at  York.  A  Scottish  prisoner,  however,  revealed  the  plot, 
and  when  the  Scots  arrived  at  York  they  found  that  their  intended  prize  had 
escaped.  They  made  what  amends  they  could  to  themselves  by  following 
their  wonted  course  of  spoliation  and  plunder,  and  the  town  of  Boroughbridge 
was  again  given  up  to  conflagration.  On  this  occasion,  however,  the  English 
took  greater  heart.  The  men-at-arms,  indeed,  were  all  with  the  king's 
army  at  Berwick,  but  the  ecclesiastics  were  numerous,  and  highly  elated 
with  the  hopes  of  victory,  and  of  rich  rew^ards  of  Scottish  benefices.  They 
accordingly  resolved  to  strike  a  blow  for  their  king.  Under  the  guidance 
of  William  of  Melton,  Archbishop  of  York,  and  the  Bishop  of  Ely,  about 
twenty  thousand  men,  monks,  priests,  mendicant  friars,  and  peasants,  with 
the  burgesses  of  York,  a  rude  and  undisciplined  assemblage,  proceeded 
to  intercept  the  Scots,  which  they  did  at  Mitton,  a  small  town  on  the  river 
Swale,  about  twelve  miles  to  the  north  of  York.  On  their  approach  the 
Scots  formed  for  battle  in  their  accustomed  manner,  in  a  close  compact  mass, 
and  raising  a  tremendous  shout,  so  terrified  the  raw  levies  headed  by  the 

^  Ryiner's  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  pp.  400-402.  -  Hiatorj-  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  pp.  323-32S. 

THE  CHAPTER  OF  MITTOX,  1319.  145 

doughty  bishops,  that  their  ranks  at  once  wavered,  and  at  the  advance  of  the 
Scots,  broke  and  fled.  Forming  into  their  separate  divisions,  tlie  Scots 
mounted  and  pursued  the  flying  host,  of  wliich  no  fewer  than  three  thousand, 
lay  and  ecclesiastic  alike,  were  put  to  the  sword,  and  another  thousand  were 
drowned  in  the  attempt  to  cross  the  river  Swale.  As  usual,  many  prisoners 
were  taken,  whose  ransom  helped  to  enrich  the  Scots.  This  engagement  was 
popularly  called  "  The  Chapter  of  Mitton,"  in  allusion  to  the  clerical 
elements  of  which  the  English  ranks  were  composed,  and  to  their  priestly 
leadersliip.  The  principal  leader  indeed  escaped,  but  had  cause  to  rue  his 
rash  adventure,  as  it  reduced  him  to  the  necessity  of  begging.^ 

The  diversion  thus  made  by  Douglas  and  Randolph  had  the  desired  effect. 
On  the  news  reaching  Berwick,  dissensions  arose  again  between  Edward  and 
the  Earl  of  Lancaster,  wldch  resulted  in  the  latter  withdrawing  from  the 
siege  his  complement  of  the  English  army,  about  one-third  of  the  whole.- 
The  rest  of  the  army  were  dispirited  both  by  their  want  of  success  against 
Berwick,  and  by  the  intelligence  of  the  ravages  of  the  Scots  among  their 
homes,  so  that  Edward  resolved  to  raise  the  siege,  and  attempt  to  intercept 
Douglas  and  Eandolph  on  their  way  home.  On  learning  his  intention 
the  Scottish  leaders  took  another  route  and  reached  Scotland  with  their 
spoils  unmolested,  leaving,  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  English  army,  their 
track  marked  by  fire  and  desolation.  A  list  of  no  fewer  than  between 
eighty  and  ninety  English  towns  and  villages  burned  and  destroyed  by  the 
Scots  in  this  expedition  in  Yorkshire  alone  is  given  in  letters  addressed  to 
the  tax  collectors  of  that  county,^  and  from  such  a  computation  some  estimate 

1  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  239  ;  Walsing-  Scots,  and  of  favouring  Bruce's  claim  to  the 

ham,  p.  89  ;  Raine's  Historical  Papers  and  sovereignty.     He  was  executed   for   treason 

Letters  from  Xorthem  Registers,  pp.  294-296  ;  shortly  after  this. — [Raine's  Historical  Papers, 

Barbour's  Bruce,  pp.  403-405.  etc.,  p.  285  ;  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  Notes, 

'^  Lancaster    was     strongly    suspected    of  p.  422  ;  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  415.] 

carrying  on  a  secret  correspondence  ■with  the  -^  Rymer'a  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  p.  409. 

VOL.  I.  T 


may  be  formed  of  the  fearful  havoc  wrought  in  the  north  of  England  by 
these  repeated  Scottish  incursions. 

This  terrible  raid  was  succeeded  by  another  on  the  1st  November  follow- 
ing, under  the  same  two  commanders.  The  inhabitants  of  the  northern 
districts  of  England  had  just  garnered  their  harvest,  when  the  Scottish 
army  came  sweeping  down  upon  them  through  Gillsland,  burning  and 
destroying  as  formerly,  and  on  to  Borough-on-Stanmore  in  "Westmoreland, 
where,  after  ten  or  twelve  days'  harrying,  they  returned  through  Cumljerlaud, 
driving  their  booty  before  them,  and  marking  their  course  in  their  usual 

After  this  the  Scots  were  inclined  to  agree  to  a  truce,  and  one  of  two 
years'  duration  was  signed,  which  brought  a  temporary  repose  to  the  warriors 
of  both  countries.-  It  was  cheerfully  agreed  to  by  the  Scots,  remarks  an 
English  historian,  not  because  they  were  fatigued  with  their  wars,  but 
because  they  were  satiated  with  English  spoils. ^  The  truce  was  signed  on 
25th  December  1319. 

These  two  years  of  rest  from  war  w^ere  otherwise  eventful,  both  as 
regards  the  kincjdom  of  Scotland  and  the  domestic  concerns  of  Doudas  liim- 
self.  The  Pope  had  renesved  his  fulminations  against  Bruce,  even  recalling 
the  slaughter  of  John  Comyn  at  Dumfries;*  and  summoning  Bruce  and  several 
of  the  Scottish  bishops  to  his  presence.^  Although  there  were  not  wanting 
evidences  that  the  hand  of  Edward  was  in  the  matter,  Bruce  deemed  it  prudent 
to  endeavour  to  conciliate  the  Papal  See.  Eor  this  purpose  a  Parliament 
was  convened  at  Arbroath,  and  the  famous  letter  or  manifesto  to  the  Pope 
drawn  up,  which,  in  the  most  respectful  and  reverential  language,  yet  with  a 
firmness  and  courage  born  of  the  justness  of  their  cause,  affirmed  the  determi- 

'  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  240.  *  Rymer's  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  pp.  407-413. 

-  Rymer's  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  p.  416.  ^  Raine's  Letters  from  Northern  Registers, 

^  Walsingham,  p.  89.  pp.  296,  302-304. 

RECEIVES  G EASTS  OF  LANDS,  1320.  14' 

nation  of  the  Scots  to  maintain  that  independence  which  was  their  birthright, 
and  throwing  back  upon  the  Pope  himself  the  responsibility  of  the  bloodshed 
which  must  ensue  if  he  continued  to  favour  the  English  in  their  unjust  pre- 
tensions. Nay,  while  they  were  and  would  be  obedient  sons  of  the  Pope  as 
God's  vicegerent,  they  committed  the  defence  of  their  cause  to  God  himself, 
the  great  King  and  Judge,  with  full  confidence,  and  in  the  persuasion  that 
He  would  endow  them  with  strength  and  overthrow  their  enemies.  To  this 
document,  alonir  with  the  rest  of  the  nobles,  Douglas  affixed  his  seaL"^ 

It  was  about  this  time  that  the  long  and  disinterested  services  of  Douglas 
were  in  some  measure  recognised  by  the  grant  of  the  lands,  castle,  and  forest 
of  Jedburgh,  with  the  town  of  Bonjedward,^  and  of  tlie  barony  of  Stabilgorton 
in  Eskdale,^  both  dated  at  Arbroath,  the  6th  of  May  1320.  A  month  pre- 
viously, while  the  Court  was  at  Berwick,  before  removing  to  Arbroath,  he 
received  the  important  charter  of  his  own  ancestral  domains  of  Douglasdale 
and  Carmichael,  which  is  known  as  the  boundary  charter,  as  it  describes  with 
some  minuteness  the  limits  of  the  Douglas  territory  in  the  county  of  Lanark  ;* 
and  even  anterior  to  this  he  had  obtained  a  gift  of  the  lands  of  Polbuthy  in 
Moffatdale.^  The  Soulis  conspiracy  was  the  cause  of  another  estate  being 
conferred  upon  the  Lord  of  Douglas,  that  of  the  extensive  barony  of 
Watstirker  or  Westerkirk  in  Eskdale.^  William  de  Soulis,  wdio  had  but 
recently  been  received  into  favour  by  Bruce,  and  on  account  of  his  connection 
with  the  blood-royal,  was  created  high  butler  of  Scotland,  formed  a  plot 
to  assassinate  Bruce  and  others,  with  the  object  of  setting  himself  upon 
the  throne,  as  the  lineal  descendant  of  the  illegitimate  daughter  of  King 

1  The  letter  is  dated  Gth  April  1.320.      Acts  ^  Dated  ISth  December  1.318.     Vol.  iii.  of 
of  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland,  vol.  i,  p.  475.        this  work,  p.  9. 

2  VoL  iii.  of  this  work.  «  Charters,  dated  20th  April  and  30th  Seji- 

3  Ibid.  p.  10.  tember   1321,  voL   iii.  of  this  work,  p.   10  ; 
*  Dated  1st  April  1320.    Vol.  iii.  of  this  work.       Registrum  Honoris  de  Morton,  vol.  ii.  p.  20. 


Alexander  the  Second,  who  had  married  Alan  Uurward.  The  conspiracy  was 
revealed  by  the  Countess  of  Strathern,  and  after  being  tried  and  condemned 
by  the  Parliament  held  at  Scone  in  August  1320,  popularly  called  the  "Black 
Parliament,"  Soulis  and  his  accomplices  were  executed,  and  their  lands 
forfeited  to  the  crown. 

Douglas  also  about  this  time  obtained  grants  of  the  forests  of  Selkirk, 
Ettrick,  and  Traquair,^  sometimes  known  by  the  simpler  designation  of 
Ettrick  Forest,  or  The  Forest,  also  the  constabulary  of  Lauder  or  Lauder- 
dale,2  with  the  barony  of  Bedrule  in  Teviotdale.  He  likewise  received  the 
lands  of  Cockburn  in  Berwickshire,  which  had  come  into  the  power  of 
the  Crown  by  the  forfeiture  of  Sir  Peter  Luband,  a  Gascon  knight,  some 
time  governor  of  Edinburgh  Castle  under  the  English.  The  possession  of 
some  at  least  of  these  lands  at  this  period  is  proved  by  a  gift  made  by 
James,  Lord  of  Douglas,  to  Pioger  de  Moravia,  son  of  the  lately  deceased 
Archibald  de  Moravia,  of  the  tenement  of  Fala,  in  the  barony  of  Heriot.  This 
important  charter,  which  defines  the  boundaries  of  this  early  possession  of 
the  Murrays  of  Falahill  and  Philiphaugh,  w^as  granted  at  Newbattle  Abbey 
on  1st  September  1321.^  The  gift  was  bestowed  on  Eoger  of  Murray  in 
return  for  his  services  to  the  Lord  of  Douglas ;  and  at  the  pressing  request 
of  the  latter,  the  Abbot  of  Newbattle,  two  months  later,  bestowed  on 
Murray  the  privilege  of  drawing  water  from  a  moss  situated  on  the  west 
side  of  the  way  called  "Derestrete"  (probably  the  Eoman  road,  as  it  is 
elsewhere  called  the  via  regia  or  highway)  into  the  ditch  (matriccm  fossaw) 
which  forms  the  boundary  between  the  Abbot's  lands  and  Colden.  For 
this  right  Murray  w^as  to  pay  the  sum  of  three  shillings  yearly  to  the  Abbey.* 

Towards  the  close  of  the  period  of  truce  between  Scotland  and  England 
the  relations  between  the  two  countries  became  somewhat  complex.      The 

1  Robertson's  Index,  p.  10,  No.  24.  ^  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work. 

•  Ibid.  p.  10,  No.  21.  *  Registrum  de  Neubotle,  p.  229. 


Earl  of  Lancaster  raised  a  rebellion  in  the  north  of  England,  in  which  he 
allied  himself  with  the  Scots,  the  negotiations  between  them  being  proved 
by  letters  of  safe-conduct  to  one  of  Lancaster's  emissaries  from  Donglas/ 
and  also  from  Randolph,-  the  former  evidently  as  warden  of  the  ]\rarches, 
the  latter  as  lieutenant  of  the  kingdom.  Other  letters  passed  between 
Douglas  and  the  conspirators,  which,  though  not  signed  by  him,  were  sealed 
with  his  seal.^  A  document  found  after  death  upon  the  body  of  the  Earl 
of  Hereford,  who  sided  with  Lancaster,  gives  further  evidence  of  the  con- 
spiracy. It  was  agreed  that  Bruce,  Randolph,  and  Douglas  should  assist 
Lancaster,  whom  they  designated  King  Arthur,  wherever  and  whenever  sucli 
assistance  was  required,  in  England,  Wales,  or  Ireland,  without  claiming  any 
share  in  the  conquests  achieved  by  him.  On  the  other  hand,  Lancaster 
and  his  supporters  promised  never  to  tight  in  future  against  the  Scots,  and 
when  their  own  ends  were  accomplished,  to  do  what  lay  in  their  power  to 
secure  a  durable  peace  between  the  two  nations  on  the  basis  of  Scottish 

Perhaps  it  w\as  in  fulfilment  of  part  of  this  programme  that  only  a  fort- 
night after  the  truce  between  the  two  kingdoms  had  expired,  Douglas, 
Eandolph,  and  Walter  the  High  Steward  engaged  in  another  of  those 
incursions  which  had  already  so  desolated  the  northern  provinces  of  England, 
as  it  appears  that  Douglas  met  with  the  chief  conspirators  at  Lancaster's  seat 
at  Pontefract.^  It  may,  however,  have  been  spontaneous  on  the  part  of  the 
Scots,  either  on  account  of  the  spirit  in  which  Edward  had  kept  the  truce, 
or  because  of  intelligence  that  it  was  the  English  king's  intention  to  resume 
hostilities  at  once,  or  both  causes  combined.  At  any  rate,  it  was  ever 
Douglas's  policy  to  strike  swiftly  and  surely,  and  by  being  first  in  the  field 

1  Vol.   iv.   of   this  work,   p.   53  ;  Rymer's  ^  Vol.  iv.  of  this  work,  pp.  54,  55. 
Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  p.  463.                              .  *  Rymer's  Fcedera,  vol.  iL  p.  479. 

2  Ibkl  p.  472.  5  /^/f^,  pp,  4(57^  474, 


he  was  able  to  disconcert  his  foe  not  a  little.  On  this  occasion  Durham  was 
again  the  theatre  of  operations,  and  while  Randolph  remained  at  Dermiugton, 
Douglas  and  the  High  Steward  respectively  visited  the  districts  surround- 
ing Hartlepool  and  Richmond,  the  last-named  place  redeeming  itself  from 
destruction  by  a  timely  indemnity.^  It  was  immediately  after  this  that 
Lancaster's  insurrection  was  overthrown  by  Edward's  troops,  and  the  Earl 
himself  beheaded  at  Pontefract.- 

The  success  of  his  arms  against  his  revolutionary  subject  inspired  Edward 
still  more  w^ith  the  desire  to  visit  the  Scots  with  a  similar  chastisement.  He 
accordingly  made  preparations  on  an  elaborate  scale  for  invading  the  northern 
kingdom,  and  when  the  Pope,  after  receiving  the  letter  from  the  King  and 
Parliament  of  Scotland,  wrote  recommending  Edward  to  make  peace  with 
Bruce,  Edward  replied  requesting  the  Pope  to  give  himself  no  further  trouble 
ou  that  score,  as  he  had  resolved  to  secure  a  lasting  peace  by  force  of  arms."^ 
On  learning  this  intention,  Bruce,  in  person,  made  another  destructive  raid 
into  England  as  far  as  the  town  of  Lancaster,  where  he  was  reinforced  Ijy 
Douglas  and  Randolph,  when  they  penetrated  to  Preston,  and  five  miles 
beyond  that  town,  a  distance  altogether  of  over  eighty  miles  from  Scotland. 
Many  religious  houses  were  on  this  occasion  sacrificed,  and  on  their  return, 
after  spending  nearly  three  weeks  in  England,  the  Scots  invested  Carlisle 
for  five  days,  and  devastated  all  the  country  around  through  which  they 
passed.  This  may  have  been  done  to  avenge  the  death  of  their  late  ally,  the 
Earl  of  Lancaster,  and  the  demonstration  at  Carlisle,  the  seat  of  the  new 
Warden  of  the  jMarches,  Sir  Andrew  Hartcla,  who  had  been  instrumental  in 
Lancaster's  death,  was  probably  intended  to  apprise  that  leader  of  the 
contempt  in  which  they  held  him.  Their  return  into  Scotland  with  an 
immense  amount  of  plunder  and  many  prisoners  was  effected  only  on  the 

^  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  pp.  241,  242. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  242-245.  ^  Eymer's  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  p.  4S1. 

I.yVASIOX  OF  .SCOTLAND  BY  EDWARD  II.,   1322.  151 

day  preceding  that  ou  which  the  English  army  had  been  appointed  to  muster 
at  Newcastle,  25th  July.^ 

Despatching  a  fleet  to  the  Firth  of  Forth  with  supplies  for  his  huge 
army,  estimated  to  consist  of  one  hundred  thousand  men,  and  also  fitting 
out  a  squadron  to  operate  on  the  west  coast  of  Scotland,  Edward  himself 
set  forward  on  August  1st.  His  progress  through  the  south  of  Scotland 
was  unopposed,  the  population  having  removed  themselves,  with  their 
cattle  and  goods,  either  into  strongholds  or  to  inaccessible  mountiun 
fastnesses.  The  English  accordingly  found  themselves  obliged  to  rely 
for  support  upon  what  they  had  brought  with  them  until  they  reached 
Edinburgh.  Here,  however,  disappointment  also  awaited  them.  Bruce  had 
retired  across  the  Forth,  which  the  English  ships,  owing  to  contrary  winds, 
could  not  enter.  Edward  remained  at  Edinburgh  three  days,  during  which 
he  sent  out  foraging  parties  to  scour  the  Lothians.  They  succeeded,  says 
Barbour,  in  getting  one  lame  cow  at  Tranent,^  but  as  it  did  not  go  far  towards 
meeting  the  exigencies  of  the  case  a  retreat  was  ordered.  Starvation  proved 
"  sterner  than  steel,"  and  as  they  hastened  their  march  through  the  desert 
by  which  they  had  come,  they  found  the  vigilant  Warden  of  the  Scottish 
Marches  quite  on  the  alert,  and  ready  to  take  advantage  of  any  opportunities 
which  disorganisation  in  the  English  host  might  afford. 

1  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  246  ;  ilymer's  with  the  rest  of  the  cattle.     The  "conquest," 

Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  p.  485.  however,  cost  the  English  a  knight,  for  at  the 

coal  mines  at  Tranent  a  lame  rustic,  a  collier, 

-  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  427.  This  historian  armed  with  a  long  hooked  stick,  drew  one  of 
says  that  the  animal  obtained  at  Tranent  cost  the  English  knights  otf  his  horse,  and  cora- 
upwards  of  a  thousand  pounds.  What  is  pelled  him  to  pay  a  good  round  sum  for  his 
implied  may  be  gathered  from  an  anecdote  ransom.  His  redemption,  says  Fordun,  en- 
related  by  Fordun  about  the  same  thing.  In  riched  the  poor  man.  No  wonder  the  Earl  of 
their  foray,  he  says,  the  English  could  only  Warenne  remarked  that  the  ilesh  of  that  co>v 
find  one  lame  bull  which  it  had  not  been  was  by  far  too  dear.— [Goodall's  Fordun, 
found  possible  to  remove  to  a  place  of  safety  vol.  ii.  p.  27 S.] 


A  company  of  three  hundred  soldiers  was  sent  forward  to  occupy  the 
abbey  of  iNIelrose,  whom  Douglas  attacked  and  nearly  exterminated.  This 
deterred  the  now  debilitated  English  army  from  encamping  in  the  neigli- 
bourhood,  and  hastened  their  departure  across  the  Border,  after  taking  what 
revenge  they  could  by  destroying  the  monasteries  of  Melrose  and  Dryburgli 
and  killiniz  a  few  feeble  monks  who  had  not  been  able  to  flee.  On  arrivintr 
in  their  own  country  the  soldiers  fell  so  voraciously  upon  the  food  furnished 
to  them,  that  in  addition  to  those  already  slain  by  starvation  great  numbers 
died  of  dysentery,  the  total  loss  being  about  sixteen  thousand  men. 

While  Edward  re-entered  England  by  the  East  Marches,  Bruce,  ^Wth 
a  force  which  Barbour  states  as  eighty  thousand  men,  crossed  the  Sol  way 
Firth,  and  after  wasting  all  the  country  around  Carlisle,  proceeded  to  lay 
siege  to  Xorham  Castle,  on  the  river  Tweed.  Here,  probably,  he  was 
joined  by  Douglas,  and  as  the  fortress  was  too  strong  to  be  quickly  reduced, 
the  siege  was  suddenly  raised. 

Edward  had  by  this  time  reached  Biland  Abbey,  a  religious  house  between 
Thirsk  and  Malton  in  Yorkshire,  where  he  reinforced  his  army  by  new  levies, 
and  rested  while  they  assembled.  Here  he  received  the  news  of  the  aban- 
donment of  the  siege  of  Xorham  Castle,  and  again  taking  heart,  issued  orders 
for  the  further  increase  of  his  army  to  pursue  the  war.  Bruce,  however,  had 
left  Norham  only  for  a  bolder  venture,  nothing  less  than  to  meet  the  English 
king  and  Ids  army  on  their  own  soil,  and  indeed  in  the  very  heart  of  England. 

The  Scots  made  their  advance  secretly,  choosing  a  way  through  the 
rocky  district  of  Blakhoumer,  which,  on  account  of  its  inaccessibility, 
they  had  hitherto  avoided.  Desolation,  as  usual,  marked  their  entire 
course.  Directing  their  march  towards  the  Abbey  of  Biland,  the  Scots 
encountered  a  strong  English  force  under  Sir  John  of  Brittany,  Earl  of 
Itichmond,  who  had  been  sent  out  to  reconnoitre  the  advance  of  the  Scots. 
The   English   posted   themselves  along   a   steep   and   rugged   hill   between 

BATTLE  OF  BILAXD  ABBEY,  1322.  i^:; 

the  abbeys  of  Bilaiid  and  Eivaulx,  across  which,  through  a  narrow  pass, 
lay  the  way  to  Biland.  A  council  of  the  Scottish  commanders  was  lield, 
and  Douglas  vohmteered  either  to  force  tlie  pass  or  compel  the 
to  come  down  to  the  plain.  His  offer  was  accepted,  and  the  bravest  of 
the  Scots  at  once  flocked  to  his  banner.  As  he  proceeded  to  the  scene  of 
conflict  he  was  joined  by  Eandolph,  Earl  of  Moray,  who,  rather  than  remain 
among  the  spectators,  w^ent  simply  as  a  volunteer.  The  entrance  to  the  pass 
w^as  contested  by  Sir  Thomas  Uchtred  and  Sir  Kalph  Cobham,  two  English 
knights,  but,  after  a  stubborn  resistance,  both  were  overpowered,  and  Cobham 
fled,  while  Uchtred,  disdaining  to  do  so,  was  taken  prisoner. 

A  more  formidable  impediment  to  the  passage  of  the  Scots  was  caused 
by  the  stones  and  masses  of  rock  which  the  English  on  the  heights  hurled 
down  upon  them.  To  check  this,  Bruce  selected  from  his  ranks  all  the 
"  Irishry  "  of  the  Western  Isles  and  Argyllshire,  wdio,  from  their  experience 
among  their  native  mountains,  were  as  nimble  as  deer.  These  he  directed  to 
scale  the  crags  and  attack  the  English  from  above,  wliicli  was  done,  and  the 
English  were  driven  from  the  hill.  Their  main  body  did  not  await  the 
arrival  of  the  Scots,  who  now  rapidly  defiled  through  the  pass,  and  Edward, 
as  soon  as  he  heard  of  Eichmoud's  discomfiture,  lost  no  time  in  taking  his 
departure  from  Biland  Abbey,  hotly  pursued  by  Walter  the  High  Steward 
to  the  gates  of  York.^  So  suddenly  had  he  been  compelled  to  take  to  flight, 
that  the  royal  plate,  treasure,  and  baggage  were  left  to  their  fate,  and  as  had 
been  the  case  on  his  inglorious  flight  from  Bannockburn,  when  he  was  chased 
by  Douglas  to  Dunbar,  so  now  for  a  second  time  Edward  sustained  the  loss 
of  his  privy  seal.- 

»  Tytler  say3  that   the  chase  lay  in   the       which  indeed  was  the  English  king's  nearest 
opposite  direction  to  Bridlington  ;  but  Bar-       place  of  refuge. 
hour,  Walsingham,  Leland,  and  the  Chronicle 

of  Lanercoat,  all  agree  that  it  was  to  York,  "  Rymer's  Foedera,  vol.  ii.  p.  498. 

VOL.  I.  U 


His  army,  which  lay  around  Bikmd,  was  routed  with  great  slaughter. 
Many  fled  to  the  neighbouring  abbey  of  Ilivaulx,  on  the  river  Eye,  but  it 
was  soon  reduced,  and  not  a  few  prisoners  of  note  were  there  taken,  including 
the  Earl  of  riichmond,  and  Henry  of  Sully,  grand  butler  of  France,  who, 
with  other  French  knights,  had  joined  the  standard  of  Edward.  It  fared  ill 
with  Eichmond,  who,  on  account  of  some  insolent  remarks,  which  had  been 
reported  to  Eruce,  was  treated  with  marked  disdain,  and  placed  in  strict 
confinement,  until,  after  some  lapse  of  time,  he  was  ransomed  for  twenty 
thousand  pounds.^ 

The  French  knights,  on  the  other  hand,  were  treated  with  kindness  and 
courtesy,  invited  to  remain  at  the  Scottish  court  while  they  pleased,  and 
afterwards,  when  they  desired  to  return  to  France,  Bruce  loaded  them  with 
gifts,  and  sent  them  away.  The  Scots  spoiled  the  monasteries  of  Biland  and 
Eivaulx,  enriching  themselves  with  Edward's  private  treasures,  then  spreading 
over  the  district  as  far  as  the  "Wolds,  and  all  around  York,  they  scattered 
desolation  and  destruction  everywhere.  At  Beverley  they  stayed  their  hand, 
being  prevailed  upon  to  spare  that  town  in  return  for  an  indenmity  of  four 
hundred  pounds ;  then  admonished  of  the  approach  of  winter,  and  having 
spent  upwards  of  a  month  in  England,  they  retraced  their  steps  homeward, 
entering  Scotland  on  the  2d  November  with  a  multitude  of  prisoners  of 
varied  rank,  and  with  immense  spoil,  both  of  kind  and  cattle.^ 

To  Douglas  himself  at  the  battle  of  Biland  three  French  knights,  with 
their   squires,   had    surrendered,   Eobert  and   William    Bertram   and   Elias 

^  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  43G.    The  Pope  threw  -  Barbour's  Bruce,  pp.  431-437;  Chronicon 

upon  Edward   the  duty   of  raasoming  llich-  de    Lanercost,    pp.   247,  248  ;   Lelands  Coi- 

mond  and  Sully.  —  [Rymer's  Foedera,  vol.   ii.  lectanea,  vol.  i.  j).  250;  Walsingham,  p.  9.5; 

p.    507.]      Sully   afterwards   repaid    Bruce's  Goodall's    Fordun,     vol.    ii.    pp.    27S,  279  ; 

kindness  by  acting   as    intermediary  in  the  Raine's  Letters  from  Northern  Registers,  pp. 

negotiations    for    peace    which   followed  this  316-323. 

battle.— [//./V,  p.  .-.11.]  ^ 

THE  EMERALD  CHARTER,   1324.  \5r> 

Anillage,  whose  ransom  was  fixed  at  four  thousand  four  hundred  nierks 
sterling.  To  please  the  King  of  France,  Bruce,  as  already  stated,  extended 
special  favours  to  the  captured  French  knights,  and  in  return  for  foregoing; 
the  amount  of  the  ransom  of  these  three,  Douglas  received  from  Bruce 
the  famous  grant  known  as  the  Emerald  Charter.  This  was  a  gift,  not 
of  lands,  but  of  the  criminal  jurisdiction  of  all  the  extensive  baronies 
which  Douglas  held  of  the  Crown  at  that  time  ;  of  the  "  indictments  of 
robberies,  and  full  administration  thereof,"  over  all  his  lands  M'ithin  the 
kingdom,  with  the  exception  of  articles  relating  to  manslaughter  and  the 
Crov/n,  which  the  king  reserved.  It  further  freed  James,  Lord  of  Douglas,  and 
his  heirs  and  tenants,  from  all  the  usual  feudal  services,  such  as  suits  of  court, 
warding  of  castles,  poindings  and  captions,  etc.,  except  the  common  aid 
due  for  the  defence  of  tlie  realm.  One  feature  which  was  unique  about  this 
grant  was  the  mode  of  investiture,  which  was  given  by  the  king  taking 
an  emerald  ring  off  his  own  finger  and  placing  it  on  the  finger  of  the  Lord 
of  Dou2:las,  as  an  endurincr  memorial  in  name  of  sasine,  that  the  errant 
should  be  firm  and  secure  to  him  and  his  heirs  for  ever.  It  is  also  worthy 
of  remark  that  the  grant  is  made  absolute,  and  is  not  accompanied  with  any 
terms  of  reddendo.  This  extensive  judicial  authority  was  conferred  on 
Douglas  when  the  king  and  he  were  together  at  Ber\vick-on-Tweed,  on  8th 
November  132i.^ 

King  Eobert  during  the  month  following  the  grant  of  the  Emerald 
Charter  to  Douglas  appears  to  have  remained  in  the  town  of  Berwick, 
disposing  of  the  lands  there  which  had  belonged  to  his  rebeUious  subjects. 
Here,  too,  he  received  in  open  council  the  resignation  of  a  portion  of 
the  lands  of  Alexander  of  Keith,  which  lay  in  the  barony  of  Longforgan. 
Thence  he  proceeded  to  Arbroath,  where,  ou  6  th  Februar}',  James,  Lord 
of  Douglas,   attested   a   regrant   of  these   lands  to  Alexander   Keith,  and 

*  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  pp.  11,  12. 


failiucr  heirs-male,  to  his  dauLrhter  Allies  and  her  husljand,  William  Aveiiel.^ 
The  king,  however,  returned  to  Berwick  at  the  close  of  this  month,  and 
here  Sir  James,  Lord  of  Douglas,  received  a  gi-ant  of  the  lands  of  Buittle 
in  Galloway.  This  included  the  whole  parish  of  that  name,  with  the 
exception  of  the  lands  of  Corbettoun,  and  those  belonging  to  Patrick 
MacGibbothyn.  The  lands  of  Buittle,  of  which  the  marches  are  explicitly 
stated,  and  on  which  was  situated  the  castle  of  John  Baliol,  were  given  to 
Sir  James  Douglas  and  his  heirs  in  free  barony,  with  exclusive  jurisdiction, 
except  in  the  four  pleas  of  the  Crown,  and  with  the  rights  of  patronage  of 
churches,  liberty  of  burgh,  wreck  of  the  sea,  anchorages  of  harbours,  etc., 
for  a  pair  of  gilt  spurs  yearly  to  be  rendered  at  Troqueer.- 

In  the  month  of  March  following  King  Robert  the  Bruce  held  his 
Parliament  at  Scone.  Sir  James  Douglas  was  present,  and  received  from 
the  king  a  special  connnission  in  favour  of  the  monks  of  Melrose.  To  rebuild 
their  church  from  the  ruins  left  by  the  English  army  in  their  last  retreat 
from  Scotland,  King  Eobert  at  this  time  granted  to  the  abbot  and  convent 
all  the  duties  exigible  from  the  justiciary  and  sheriff-courts  of  Eoxburghshire, 
to  the  extent  of  two  thousand  pounds  sterling.  The  officials  were  instructed 
to  give  this  debt  of  the  king  preference  over  all  other  claims  until  the  amount 
was  paid.  To  insure  that  these  dues  were  diligently  collected  and  faithfully 
paid  to  the  church,  Bruce  appointed  James,  Lord  of  Douglas,  super-auditor 
of  the  accounts,  and  executor,  with  viceregal  powers  of  justiciary,  for  enforc- 
ing the  payment.^  The  amount,  however,  had  not  been  realised  forty-three 
years  later,  as  in  13G9,  King  David  the  Second  confirmed  the  gift  made  by 
his  father,  and  appointed  Sir  Archibald  of  Douglas  in  room  of  his  late  father, 
Sir  James,  to  oversee  the  discharge  of  the  debf* 

1  Original  Charter  in  Glamis  Charter-chest.  ^  Liber  de  Melros,  vol.  ii.  pp.  325,  326. 

*  Confirmation  of  charter,  10th  September 

2  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  pp.  12,  13.  1369,  ihhl  pp.  405-407. 

TRUCE  WITH  ENGLAND,   1325.  157 

During  the  years  1325  or  1326,  Douglas,  in  company  with  Bishop  Lam- 
berton  of  St.  Andrews,  paid  a  visit  to  the  castle  of  Tarbert  on  the  east  coast 
of  Kintyre,  tlien  in  process  of  erection.  This  is  shown  by  the  following  entry 
in  the  Chamberlain  Eolls  for  that  period  :  "  To  litter  for  the  chambers  of  the 
Lord  Lishop  of  St.  Andrews,  and  Sir  James,  Lord  of  Douglas,  with  the  cutting 
and  carriage  of  branches  of  birch  for  repairing  the  hall  and  chambers,  2s.  2kl."^ 
The  ruins  of  this  castle  still  form  a  picturesque  object  on  the  coast  of  Argyll- 
shire. King  Eobert  appears  in  his  later  years  to  have  taken  delight  in 
cruising  about  the  western  islands,  and  he  was  probably  so  engaged  when 
Douglas  and  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews  were  at  Tarbert. 

After  his  disastrous  defeat  at  Biland  Abbey  in  1322,  Edward  the 
Second  of  England  was  fain  to  obtain  a  truce  from  the  hands  of  Bruce, 
who,  however,  only  consented  after  the  Grand  Butler  of  France,  Henry  de 
Sully,  had  used  his  influence  in  Edward's  favour.  During  the  negotiations 
Bruce  manifested  his  contempt  for  his  foe  by  giving  out  that  he  was 
about  to  send  another  expedition  into  England,  the  news  of  which  caused 
the  English  king  to  summon  his  vassals  for  defence  of  the  country.  They 
were,  however,  spared  the  invasion,  and  a  truce  of  thirteen  years'  duration 
was  at  last  arranged,  in  the  course  of  which  Edward  was  obliged  to  acknow- 
ledge Bruce  as  King  of  Scotland.-  Sir  James  of  Douglas  was  one  of  the 
magnates  of  Scotland,  whose  oaths  for  the  observance  of  the  truce  Edward  of 
England  directed  his  Commissioners  to  receive.^  It  was  with  no  good 
will  that  Edward  entered  into  the  truce  at  all,  and  he  resorted  to  his 
former  practice  of  stirring  up  the  Pope  against  the  Scots.  Randolph,  Earl 
of  Moray,  had  been  despatched  to  Ptome  by  Bruce  to  endeavour  to  conciliate 
the  Pope,  and  so  far  succeeded  that  the  latter  addressed  a  bull  to  Bruce,  in 
which  he  addressed  him  as  King  of  Scotland.     This  gave  offence  to  Edward, 

1  Exchequer  Rolls  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  58. 

2  Rymer'a  Foedera,  vol.  ii.  pp.  510-524.  ^  Ibid.  p.  522. 



who,  on  remonstrating  with  the  Pope,  received  the  reply  that  it  had  been 
done  for  prudential  reasons,  and  not  in  the  way  of  determining  Bruce's  right 
to  the  throne  of  Scotland.  The  Pope  desired  that  his  missive  should  reach 
Bruce,  and,  no  doubt,  mindful  of  the  treatment  which  his  emissaries  received 
at  the  hands  of  the  Scots  when  on  a  former  occasion  they  sought  to  deliver 
letters  to  the  king  without  due  acknowledgments,  did  not  desire  to  see  them 
again  rejected.  Edward,  however,  so  far  succeeded  in  his  persistent  negotia- 
tions at  Eome  that  at  his  special  instance  the  petition  of  the  Scots  for 
the  removal  of  the  ecclesiastical  censures  under  which  they  lay  was  refused, 
and  for  this  he  was  profusely  grateful.^  At  another  time  he  found  fault  with 
the  wardens  of  the  Marches  for  granting  safe-conducts  too  freely  to  the 
Scots,^  and  shortly  afterwards  instructed  the  Bishop  of  Durham  and  others 
to  fortify  the  castles  of  Norham,  Alnwick,  and  others  against  the  Scots. ^ 
But  in  the  same  year  he  was  deposed  from  the  throne  of  England  by  his 
own  son. 

England's  relations  with  Scotland  did  not  improve  with  the  assumption 
of  the  reins  of  government  by  King  Edward  the  Third.  He  was  but  a  boy 
at  the  time,  and  though  his  Council  were  bound  to  respect  the  treaty 
between  the  two  countries,  they  did  so  in  a  manner  which,  in  connection 
with  former  marks  of  disrespect,  provoked  the  Scots  to  resentment.  Bruce's 
regal  dignity  was  ignored,  and  acts  of  piracy  were  committed  on  Scottish 
merchant  ships  at  sea,-*  until  Bruce,  says  Tytler,  declared  his  resolution  of 
disregarding  a  truce  already  violated  by  one  of  the  parties,  and  of  instantly 
invading  England,  unless  prevented  by  a  speedy  and  advantageous  peace.^ 
The  Scots  appear  to  have  been  the  aggressors  in  this  open  breach  of  the 
truce,  and  Bruce  is  even  said  to  have  sent  a  challenge  to  the  King  of 
England.    If  the  representations  of  the  English  authorities  are  to  be  accepted. 

'  Rymer's  Fceclera,  vol.  ii.  pp.  609,  613. 
•'  Ihid.  p.  624.  3  jiia,  p   620. 

*  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  446. 

'•'  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  .3.")0. 

THE  SCOTTISH  SOLD  III  RY  IX   1327.  I'^f) 

Edward  was  in  the  belief  that  they  were  merely  coming  to  the  BorJor.s 
for  the  ratification  of  the  truce,  when  the  Scots  laid  siege  to  Norham  Castl^ 
on  the  very  night  of  the  young  king's  coronation  at  London.^  On  learning 
this,  Edward  gave  orders  for  a  general  muster  of  his  army  at  Newcastle- 
on-Tyne,-  and  declared  his  intention  of  being  himself  present  in  person  at 
the  Assendjly. 

In  his  brilliant  and  sparkling  narrative  of  the  events  of  this  time, 
Froissart  includes  the  story  of  the  campaign  which  now  ensued  between 
Scotland  and  England.  He  gives  so  lively  a  picture  of  the  Scottish  soldiery 
of  the  period,  and  of  their  mode  of  foray  and  warfare,  that  though  it  has 
been  often  quoted,  it  is  impossible  to  resist  the  temptation  of  transfening  it 
to  these  pages. 

"  The  Scots  are  bold,  hardy,  and  much  inured  to  war.  When  they  make 
their  invasions  into  England,  they  march  from  twenty  to  four-and-twenty 
leagues  (miles)  without  halting,  as  well  by  night  as  day ;  for  they  are  all  on 
horseback,  except  the  camp-followers,  who  are  on  foot.  The  knights  and 
squires  are  well  mounted  on  large  bay  horses,  the  common  people  on  little 
Galloways.  They  bring  no  carriages  with  them  on  account  of  the  mountains 
they  have  to  pass  in  Xorthumberland ;  neither  do  they  carry  with  them  any 
provisions  of  bread  or  wine ;  for  their  habits  of  sobriety  are  such  in  time  of 
war  that  they  will  live  for  a  long  time  on  flesh  half-sodden,  without  bread, 
and  drink  the  river-water  without  wine.  They  have,  therefore,  no  occasion 
for  pots  or  pans ;  for  they  dress  the  flesh  of  their  cattle  in  the  skins,  after 
they  have  taken  them  off:  and,  being  sure  to  find  plenty  of  them  in  the 
country  which  they  invade,  they  carry  none  with  them.  Under  the  fla])  of 
his  saddle,  each  man  carries  a  broad  plate  of  metal ;  behind  the  saddle,  a  httle 
l»ag  of  oatmeal:  when  they  have  eaten  too  much  of  the  sodden  flesh,  and 
their  stomach  appears  weak  and  empty,  they  place  this  plate  over  the  fire, 
'   Ist  February  1327.     Chronicon  ile  Lanercost,  p.  25S.         -  Eymer's  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  p.  702. 


mix  with  water  their  oatmeal,  and  when  the  pL^te  is  heated,  they  put  a  little 

of  the  paste  upon  it,  and  make  a  thin  cake,  like  a  cracknel  or  biscuit,  which 

they  eat  to  warm  their  stomachs :  it  is  therefore  no  wonder  that  they  perform 

a  longer  day's  march  than  other  soldiers.     In  this  manner  the  Scots  entered 

England,  destroying  and  burning  everything  as  tliey  passed.     They  seized 

more  cattle  than  they  knew  what  to  do  with.     Their  army  consisted  of  four 

thousand  men-at-arms,  knights  and  esquires,  well  mounted ;  besides  twenty 

thousand  men,  bold  and  hardy,  armed  after  the  manner  of  their  countr}',  and 

moimted  upon  little  hackneys,  that  are  never  tied  up  or  dressed,  but  turned 

immediately  after  the  day's  march  to  pasture  on  the  heath,  or  in  the  fields. 

This  army  was  commanded  by  two  valiant  captains.     The  King  of  Scotland 

himself,  who  had  been  very  brave,  yet  being  old,  and  labouring  under  a 

leprosy,  appointed  for  one  that  gallant  prince,  so  renowned  in  arms,  the  Earl 

of  Moray,  who  bore  upon  his  banner  argent  three  pillows  gules;  the  other  was 

Sir  James  Douglas,  esteemed  the  bravest  and  most  enterprising  knight  in  the 

two  kingdoms :  he  bore  for  arms,  azure  on  a  chief  argent.     These  two  lords 

were  the  greatest  barons,  and  most  renowned  for  their  prowess  and  other  feats 

of  arms." 

Another  vivacious  chronicler,   Holinshed,   refers  to   the  appearance   of 

the  English  soldiery  in  this  campaign.     They  were  all  clothed  in  coats  and 

hoods  embroidered  with  flowers  and  branches  very  seemly,  and  they  used  to 

nourish  their  beards.     He  adds  that  the  Scots,  in  derision  thereof,  made  the 

following  rhyme,  which  they  affixed  to  the  church-door  of  St.  Peter  toward 

Stangate : — 

"  long  bearHco,  f^arteleeac, 
IPapntcD  l)OODC0,  tDptlcisflC, 
(Sape  coatc0,  cracclcasc, 
itia&e  ©nclanuc  tljriftlcijsc.'"^ 

As  Froissart  observes,  Bruce  was  now  no  longer  capable  of  persoiialh' 

^  Holinshed's  Chronicle,  vol.  ii.  p.  S90. 


conducting  the  expeditions  of  his  army,  as  he  was  afflicted  with  the  disease  of 
leprosy.  To  his  well-tried  generals,  therefore.  Sir  James  of  Douglas,  and 
Randolpli,  Earl  of  Moray,  the  king  committed  the  command  of  the  Scott isli 
army  in  three  di^'isions.  With  them  he  associated  Donald,  Earl  of  Mar,  a 
kinsman  of  his  own.  Before  the  end  of  June,  Eandolph  and  Douglas  crossed 
the  Border,  devastating  all  the  parts  of  Northumberland  through  which  they 
passed,  and  ravaging  the  whole  district  of  Weardale  in  Durham.^  Thence 
they  proceeded  to  Appleby  in  Westmoreland,  and  their  arrival  there  was 
signified,  about  1st  July,  to  the  young  King  of  England  in  a  letter  by  his 
uncle,  the  Earl  of  Kent.-  Upon  this  Edward  tlie  Third,  then  at  Durham,  gave 
orders  for  strongly  fortifying  the  city  of  York,  as  his  mother,  brother,  and 
sisters  were  to  remain  there  during  the  war ;  ^  and  placing  himself  at  the  head 
of  a  magnificent  army,  numbering  altogether  between  fifty  and  one  hundred 
thousand  men  (historians  fluctuate  between  these  two  figures),  he  proceeded, 
it  is  said,  to  Barnard  Castle.*  The  Scottish  array,  composed,  as  Froissart 
relates,  of  light  and  heavy  cavalry,  amounted  to  about  twenty-four  thousand 
men.  Though  their  whereabouts  was  indicated  by  the  smoke  of  burnin" 
villages  and  the  desolation  which  usually  marked  the  track  of  the  Scots  in 
England,  the  English  leaders  could  not  come  up  with  the  Scottisli  army. 
Yet  the  latter  were  only  a  few  miles  in  advance.  Two  days  were  spent  in 
this  fruitless  chase,  the  Scots  leading  their  pursuers  over  mountain  and 
valley  and  through  marshes  until  the  English  soldiery  were  completely 
exhausted.  There  were  such  marshes,  and  savage  deserts,  mountains  and 
dales,  says  Froissart,  that  the  English  soldiers  were  forbidden,  on  pain  of 
death,  to  pass  before  the  banners  of  the  marshals.  Edward  and  his 
councillors  were,  however,  determined  to  prevent  the  return  of  the  Scots  to 
their  own  country,  and  at  midnight  the  English  army  was  called  to  arms  to 

1  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  4-18.  ^  Kymer's  Fa>dera,  vol.  ii.  p.  709. 

2  Cbronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  539.  *  Chrouicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  259. 
VOL.  I.  X 


pursue  their  journey  at  break  of  day.  The  object  in  view  was  by  a  forced 
march  to  take  possession  of  Hayden  Bridge  on  the  Tyne,  by  which  it  was 
expected  the  Scots  would  cross  that  river.     So  confident  were  the  En-^lish 


commanders  of  bringing  the  Scots  thus  to  a  final  and  decisive-  engagement, 
that  each  soldier  was  ordered  to  carry  with  him  but  one  loaf  of  bread,  and  no 
provision  was  made  for  the  horses,  while  all  baggage  was  to  be  left  in  the 
wood  in  which  they  were  encamped. 

When  day  began  to  appear  the  English  set  forward  in  all  haste,  "  through 
mountains,  valleys,  and  rocks,  and  many  evil  passages."  Night  was  falling 
again  when  tlie  vanguard  of  the  army  reached  the  Tyne,  but  a  passage 
was  effected,  and  Edward,  with  a  large  portion  of  his  army,  took  up 
their  position  on  the  north  bank  of  that  river,  in  small  comfort,  as  they 
had  brought  no  implements  with  them  to  construct  lodgings,  neither  had 
they  food.  To  add  to  their  discomfiture,  rain  began  to  fall  heavily,  which 
swelled  the  river  to  such  a  height  that  the  passage  of  the  rest  of  the 
army  in  the  morning  was  rendered  impossible.  In  these  circumstances 
the  English  host  remained,  some  on  the  one  side,  and  some  on  the  other 
side  of  tlie  river,  for  eight  days,  during  winch  they  knew  not  where  the 
Scots  were,  but  still  expecting  they  would  return  by  this  ford  as  they  had 
come  by  it.  The  Scots,  on  the  other  hand,  knew  as  little  about  the  where- 
abouts of  the  English  host,  and  so  they  remained  posted  strongly  on  a  hill 
in  Weardale,  beside  the  river  Wear.  But  the  comfort  and  plenty  in  their 
camp  was  in  perfect  contrast  with  the  wretched  and  famine-stricken  condition 
of  their  foes. 

After  a  seven  days'  sojourn  on  the  banks  of  the  rain-swollen  Tyne,  the 
discontent  and  murmurs  of  the  soldiers  compelled  the  English  commanders 
to  abandon  their  resolution  of  awaiting  the  arrival  of  the  Scots.  Edward 
accordingly,  on  the  27th  of  July,  gave  orders  for  recrossing  the  river  and 
returning  southwards  on  the  following  day.     At  the  same  time  he  offered  the 


reward  of  kniglithood  from  his  own  hands  and  the  heritable  gift  of  a  huudred- 
poimd  land  to  the  man  who  first  brought  tidings  of  the  whereabouts  of  thu 
Scots.  This  caused  a  number  of  squires  and  knights  to  scour  the  country 
around,  and  one  of  these,  Thomas  de  Rokeby,  had  the  good  fortune  to  fall 
into  the  hands  of  the  Scottish  outposts.  Eokeby  was  led  before  the  Scottish 
commanders,  to  whom  he  frankly  confessed  his  mission,  and  the  reward 
promised  by  Edward.  They  at  once  dismissed  him  in  order  to  earn  his 
reward,  with  instructions  to  make  aU  haste  and  to  inform  the  English  king 
that  they  had  been  waiting  his  advance  for  the  last  eight  days  in  as  perfect 
ignorance  of  his  whereabouts  as  he  had  been  of  theirs,  and  that  they  would 
now  be  glad  to  meet  with  him. 

Meanwhile  the  English  host  was  slowly  retracing  their  steps  southward, 
and  had  already  spent  three  days  on  the  march,  amid  the  tokens  of  the 
desolation  wrought  by  the  Scots.  On  the  fourth  day,  the  1st  of  August, 
as  they  approached  Blanchland  on  the  Derwent,  where  the  ruins  of  the  little 
abbey  there  reminded  them  of  their  hitherto  unseen  foes,  Rokeby  came  up  in 
all  haste  to  the  king  with  his  information  and  message  that  the  Scots  were 
awaiting  his  attack  within  a  few  miles  of  his  present  position.  After  resting 
and  collecting  his  troops,  and  conferring  on  Rokeby  his  well-earned  reward" 
Edward  set  forward  under  the  guidance  of  the  newly-made  knight.  In  a 
short  space  the  armies  were  in  view  of  each  other  for  the  first  time,  although 
the  campaign  had  already  extended  over  a  fortnight. 

Barbour  narrates  that  on  the  approach  of  the  English  host,  Douglas  went 
out  to  reconnoitre,  leaving  his  comrade  Randolph  in  charge  of  the  camp.  On 
the  return  of  Douglas,  Randolph  inquired  if  he  had  seen  the  enemy,  and, 
in  reply,  Douglas  told  him  of  the  splendour  of  the  English  host,  of  their 
immense  numbers,  and  that  they  were  advancing  in  no  fewer  tlian  seven 
battles.  Randolph  met  the  inteUigence  with  the  response  that  though 
they  were  as  many  again,  they  should  fight  with  them.     To  which  DougL 


is  said  to  have  replied,  "  Sir,  praised  be  God  that  we  liave  a  commander  that 
dare  undertake  such  deeds ;  but,  by  St.  Bride,  if  my  counsel  be  taken,  we 
shall  by  no  means  fight  unless  at  a  clear  advantage;  for,  in  my  opinion, 
where  the  numbers  are  so  disproportionate,  it  is  no  dishonour  to  the  weaker 
party  to  use  every  advantage  they  may  chance  to  obtain."  ^ 

On  this  principle  Sir  James  Douglas  carried  out  this  entire  campaign, 
and  brought  it  to  a  successful  issue,  while  to  have  acted  on  Randolph's 
chivalric  but  imprudent  suggestion,  would  have  been  to  court  certain  destruc- 
tion. Both  leaders  were  largely  gifted  with  a  high  degree  of  bravery  and 
courageous  daring ;  but  Douglas,  while  on  all  fitting  occasions  displaying  his 
activity  and  jDrowess,  in  which  he  at  no  time  more  distinguished  himself  than 
in  this  campaign,  qualified  it  with  such  a  measure  of  patient  and  cautious 
prudence,  that  it  was  almost  impossible  ever  to  find  Mm  off  his  guard. 

When  the  English  leaders  perceived  the  strong  and  impregnable  position 
chosen  by  Douglas,— a  high  hill,  at  the  foot  of  which  ran  in  a  rocky  bed  the 
rapid  river  Wear,  his  army,  in  three  divisions,  commanding  the  precipitous 
heights  at  every  point,— they  felt  that  an  attack  on  the  Scots,  posted  as  they 
were,  was  a  hopeless  task,  and  resorted  to  stratagem  in  order  to  allure 
them  from  the  hill.  Heralds  were  sent  to  invite  the  Scots  to  come  down  to 
the  plain,  and  the  English  offered  to  give  them  time  to  set  their  battle  in 
array  tliere,  or  else  to  allow  them  to  pass  the  river  and  obtain  a  footing  on 
tlie  other  side.  But  the  Scots  declined  the  request,  and  returned  a  message 
that  as  they  had  come  without  the  leave  of  the  English  king  and  his  lords, 
and  had  done  as  they  pleased  in  their  passage  through  the  country,  which  the 
English  might  amend  if  they  could,  so  they  would  remain  where  they  were 
so  long  as  it  pleased  themselves.  The  Englisli  thereupon  resolved  to  besiege 
the  hill,  as  they  could  not  storm  it,  thinking  to  starve  the  Scots  into  submis- 
sion, as  they  knew  they  were  destitute  of  other  provisions,  although  they  had 

^  Barbour's  Bruce,  pp.  44S,  449. 


great  abundance  of  cattle.  For  three  days  the  armies  faced  each  other  on 
opposite  sides  of  the  river.  On  one  of  these  days  the  English  detached  a 
force  of  one  thousand  archers,  inwardly  well  fortified  by  wine,  and  supported 
by  a  body  of  men-at-arms,  to  endeavour  to  break  the  ranks  of  the  Scots 
by  an  attack  on  their  flank.  Douglas  observed  the  movement,  and  at  once 
took  steps  to  meet  it.  Placing  a  strong  body  of  mounted  spearmen  under 
the  command  of  his  youngest  brother,  Archibald  Douglas,^  and  the  P'arl  of 
Mar,  he  pointed  out  a  place  of  concealment  where  he  desired  them  to  lie  in 
wait  until  they  got  his  signal  to  pursue  and  slay  the  foe.  Donning  a  gown 
over  his  armour,  Douglas  went  forward  to  meet  the  archers,  and  when  within 
a  short  distance,  began  to  retreat  in  the  direction  of  the  ambuscade.  It  was 
not  until  they  were  within  bowshot  of  the  Scots,  that  an  English  knight 
spurred  his  horse  forward  to  the  archers  to  warn  them  that  the  man  tliey 
were  following  was  none  other  than  Douglas,  who  would  play  them  a  trick. 
At  the  mention  of  the  name,  the  boldest  quailed,  and  the  whole  body  of  the 
archers  turned  and  fled.  Too  late  ;  Douglas  raised  his  hand,  and  the  hidden 
spearmen  dashed  forward  to  the  rout.  Before  the  archers  regained  the  river 
three  hundred  bodies  strewed  the  field.  So  vigorous  Avas  the  chase,  that  Sir 
William  Erskine,  a  Scottish  knight  of  that  day's  creation,  was  borne  by 
his  charger  into  the  midst  of  the  Englishmen,  who  made  him  prisoner.  But 
he  was  immediately  exchanged  for  several  Englishmen  taken  by  the  Scots. 

Another  attempt  of  a  similar  kind  was  met  by  Douglas  with  equal 
success.  The  English  knew  there  was  no  possibility  of  their  prevailing 
unless  they  could  dislodge  the  Scots  from  their  chosen  heights.     Secreting  a 

1  Archibald  Douglas  is  said  also   to  have  slaughter. — [Scalacronica,    p.     154.]      Hailes 

signalised  himself  in  this  campaign  by  forag-  thinks  this  must  have  occurred  when  Edward 

ing    expeditions    in    Durham,    and    to    have  was  camping  by   the   river  Tyne. — [Annals, 

encountered  a  band  of  Englishmen  at  Dar-  vol.  iii.  p,  72.] 
lington,    whom     he     defeated    with     great 


strong  force  in  a  valley  behind  the  Scots,  the  English  leaders  formed  the  rest 
of  their  entire  strengtli  in  line  of  battle  in  front,  and  advanced  to  the  attack. 
The  Scots  descended  to  meet  them,  but  having  been  apprised  by  his  scouts  of 
the  ambush  in  rear  of  the  liill,  Douglas  caused  his  soldiers  to  return  at  once 
to  the  summit,  where  tliey  could  with  ease  defend  themselves  against  both 
attacks  if  made.  "  They  flee,"  cried  the  English.  "  Xot  so,"  replied  Sir  John 
of  Hainault,  the  leader  of  the  foreign  cavalry  employed  by  Edward,  who  at 
once  perceived  the  stratagem.  "That  flight  is  well  planned.  I  see  their 
armed  men  behind  them,  and  they  are  but  assuming  their  former  position, 
ready  to  defend  themselves  if  pressed.  They  have  seen  our  ambush.  Yon 
folk  are  wisely  governed,  and  their  leader  for  advice,  worship,  and  wisdom, 
is  fit  to  govern  the  empire  of  Eome."  ^ 

During  the  three  nights  spent  by  them  on  the  hill,  the  Scots  kept  large 
fires  burning,  and  raised  a  great  din  by  blowing  horns  and  uttering 
tremendous  shouts.  When  the  morning  of  the  fourth  day  dawned,  to  the 
astonishment  of  the  English,  the  hill  which  the  night  before  had  resounded 
with  the  shouts  of  the  Scots  was  now  bare  and  tenantless.  A  search  for 
the  truant  foes  resulted  in  their  discovery  in  the  afternoon,  posted  on 
another  hill  in  Stanhope  Park,  by  the  same  river  side,  about  two  miles 
distant  from  their  former  camp,  and  in  a  position  even  more  inaccessible  than 
the  former,  being  defended  by  the  river  in  front  and  by  a  spacious  forest  in 
the  rear.  Hither  they  were  followed  by  the  English,  who  likewise  took  up  a 
position  on  the  north  bank  of  the  Wear  similar  to  the  one  they  formerly 

That  same  night  when  the  English  host  had  just  settled  into  repose,  Sir 
James  of  Douglas,  choosing  out  two  hundred  (according  to  Froissart,  althou-'di 
Barbour  says  five  hundred)  of  his  sturdiest  men-at-arms,  rode  off  silently, 
and  having  crossed  the  river  at  some  distance  from  the  rival  camps,  accosted 

*  Barbour's  Bruce,  pp.  447-454. 


the  English  outposts  with  the  remark,  "  Ha,  St.  George  !  no  watch  !"  Thinking 
him  one  of  their  own  officers  on  his  rounds,  they  made  no  opposition,  and 
Douglas  dashed  furiously  into  the  English  camp,  he  and  his  men  slashiiig  at 
the  tent  ropes  as  they  went,  bringing  down  the  canvas  about  the  sleeping 
soldiers,  and  slaying  any  they  came  across.  With  a  select  few,  Douglas 
himself  pressed  forward  to  the  royal  pavilion,  cut  the  ropes,  and  would  have 
slain  the  young  king  had  not  the  royal  chaplain  and  several  of  the  king's 
personal  attendants  sacrificed  their  own  lives,  and  suffered  the  king  to  escape. 
The  alarm  had  now  been  raised,  and  Douglas,  whose  terror-inspiring  name 
had  been  resounding  through  the  English  camp,  blew  his  horn,  and  gathering 
his  men,  charged  back  through  his  rapidly  thickening  foes.  At  one  point, 
according  to  Earbour,  the  leader  was  cut  off  from  his  companions  by  a  resolute 
Saxon  armed  with  a  massive  club  ;  but  Douglas's  great  strength  once  more 
saved  him,  and  the  fellow  was  slain.  With  insignificant  loss,  Douglas 
regained  the  shelter  of  his  own  camp,  and  to  Eandolph's  inquiry  as  to  the 
success  of  his  expedition,  replied,  with  a  touch  of  disappointment  in  his 
tone,  that  "  They  had  drawn  blood,  but  that  w^as  all." 

Randolph  was  of  a  mind  to  fight  in  open  battle,  but  Douglas  would  not 
consent,  and  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  they  should  retreat  towards 
Scotland.  To  enforce  his  advice,  Douglas  is  represented  by  Barbour  as 
telling  Randolph  the  story  of  a  fox  which  entered  the  lodge  of  a  fisher- 
man in  his  absence,  and  proceeded  to  breakfast  on  a  salmon  which  lay 
there.  The  fox  was  disturbed  in  his  meal  by  the  return  of  the  fisherman, 
who,  on  observing  the  intruder,  seized  a  weapon  and  stationed  himself  in  the 
doorway.  Tins  being  the  only  means  of  exit,  the  fox  was  nonplussed,  but 
observing  the  fisherman's  mantle  lying  on  the  bed,  seized  it  with  his  teeth, 
and  drew  it  across  the  fire,  which  was  burning  on  the  hearth.  To  rescue 
his  garment  the  man  dashed  forward  to  the  lire,  and  Eeynard  having  got  the 
passage  clear,  lost  no  time  in  taking   his  departure,  leaving  the   fisherman 


to  bemoan  the  loss  of  both  salmon  and  mantle.  "The  English,"  he  added, 
"are  the  fisherman,  we  the  fox.  They  bar  the  way  by  which  we  should 
return  home,  but  I  have  found  out  a  road  which,  though  somewhat  wet,  will 
afford  us  the  means  of  retiring  unmolested."  To  this  course  they  were 
compelled  by  the  impossibility  of  making  any  forays  in  search  of  food,  and 
their  present  stock  would  not  last  them  long.  It  was  accordingly  resolved 
that,  without  indicating  to  the  soldiers  for  what  purpose  they  were  to  do  so, 
all  should  hold  themselves  in  readiness  to  follow  the  banner  of  Doun-las  bv 
the  following  midnight. 

Next  day  (August  .5th)  the  Scots  were  busy  with  their  preparations.  One 
of  them,  M-ho  chanced  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  English,  was  so  hard 
pressed,  that  he  gave  information  to  tlie  English  of  what  was  going  for- 
ward, but  was  unable  to  say  for  what  purpose.  The  English,  fearin<:r  an 
attack,  set  themselves  in  array  for  battle  at  nightfall,  and  remained  under 
arms  all  night,  momentarily  expecting  the  onset  of  their  foes.  The  Scots  liad 
as  usual,  on  darkness  setting  in,  lit  large  fires,  and  set  up  their  wonted  din 
with  horns  and  shouting  ;  but  at  midniglit  they  took  their  departure,  and  bv 
daybreak  were  far  on  their  journey  homewards.  Two  Scottish  trumpeters 
were  shortly  afterwards  found  and  brought  into  the  English  camp,  who 
stated  that  they  had  been  left  to  inform  the  English  of  their  country-men's 
departure.  On  sending  for  confirmation  of  this  news  the  English  found  the 
hill  deserted,  but  where  the  Scottish  camp  had  been  was  the  miserable  spoil 
of  five  hundred  dead  cattle,  three  hundred  undressed  leather  caldrons  fixed 
upon  stakes  over  the  fires,  full  of  water  and  flesh  to  be  sodden,  and  upwards 
of  a  thousand  spits  with  meat  ready  to  roast,  with  more  than  ten  thousand 
old  leather  brogues,  still  bearing  the  hair.  Five  English  prisoners  were  also 
found  in  the  camp,  naked  and  tied  to  trees,  some  of  them  with  their  leus 
broken,  being  those  probably,  says  Hailes,  who  had  been  wounded  in  the 
skirmishes,  and  who  could  not  be  removed. 


The  English  also  discovered  the  way  by  which  the  Scots  had  taken  their 
departure,  namely,  across  a  most  dangerous  moss,  through  which  they  had 
constructed  a  road  with  branches  of  trees,  removing  these  as  soon  as  they 
had  passed,  in  order  to  prevent  pursuit.  It  is  said  that  when  the  English  saw 
the  route  chosen  they  were  afraid  to  pursue. 

The  English  council  of  war  decided  that  a  pursuit  of  the  Scots  was 
worse  than  useless,  and  resolved  to  return  to  York.  The  youthful  sovereign 
wept  in  grief  and  chagrin  at  the  escape  of  his  enemies.  But  as  fidly  a  month 
had  been  spent  in  pursuing  a  handful  of  Scots  without  a  single  opportunity 
of  inflicting  a  blow,  during  which  time  their  own  magnificent  army  had  from 
want  and  hardships  suffered  enormous  loss,  the  English  leaders  deemed  it 
imprudent  to  continue  the  inglorious  struggle.  They  made  the  best  of  the 
situation  they  could,  as  appears  from  a  summons  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, dated  7th  August,  for  the  meeting  of  a  Parliament  at  Lincoln,  to  consult 
about  the  defence  of  the  kingdom,  in  which  the  king  is  made  to  say,  that  he 
had  gone  north  to  bridle  the  insolence  of  the  Scots,  but  that  they,  after  being 
surrounded,  as  far  as  possible,  in  Stanhope  Park,  slipped  away  secretly  under 
cover  of  night.  He,  however,  gives  as  a  reason  for  calling  the  Parliament, 
that  the  Scots  had  threatened  to  return  soon  to  tlie  damage  of  the  country.^ 
At  Durham,  where,  after  a  march  of  two  days,  the  English  rested,  they  found 
the  baggage  which  they  had  left  in  the  wood,  when  so  eager  to  forestall  the 
Scots  at  the  Tyne.  It  had  been  recovered  by  the  inhabitants  of  Durham 
and  carefully  looked  after.  On  the  15th  August  they  arrived  at  York,  and 
there  the  English  army  was  thanked  and  dismissed. 

Alarmed  at  the  prolonged  absence  of  his  army  in  England,  King  Eobert 
the  Bruce  collected  another  army,  and  despatched  it,  under  the  command  of 
the  Earls  of  March  and  Angus,  for  the  relief  of  Douglas  and  Eandolph.  The 
two  forces  had  the  good  fortune  to  meet  on  the  day  following  the  departure 

^  Rymer'a  FaHlera,vol.  ii.  p.  712. 
VOL.  I.  Y 


of  the  Scots  from  Stanhope  Park,  and  returned  together  to  Scotland.^ 
Douglas,  however,  made  good  his  threat  of  returning  to  Enghind ;  for  Bruce 
having  again  laid  siege  to  Xorhani  Castle,  which  he  succeeded  in  reducing, 
Douglas  and  Randolph  made  an  assault  on  the  castle  of  Alnwick,  both  of 
which  had  been  recently  strengthened  by  Edward's  orders.  It  is  said  tliat 
while  portions  of  the  Scottish  army  were  occupied  with  these  fortresses,  Bruce 
with  another  division  rode  up  and  down  Xorthumberland,  as  if  it  was  his  own 
kingdom,  parcelling  out  the  estates  and  making  grants  of  them  to  such  as  he 
pleased.-  The  siege  of  Alnwick  was  not  successful,  or  it  was  raised  in  order 
that  the  entire  force  might  be  concentrated  upon  the  reduction  of  the  strong 
fortress  of  Xorham.  Percy  afterwards  ventured  out  of  his  castle  and  made  a 
raid  into  Teviotdale,  but  the  fact  being  reported  to  Douglas,  he  threw  himself 
between  Percy  and  his  castle  of  Alnwick,  and  forced  him  to  flee,  under  cover 
of  night,  to  Newcastle.^ 

Although  the  English  Parliament  at  Lincoln,  in  September  1327,  had 
been  summoned  for  the  prosecution  of  the  war  with  Scotland,  better  counsels 
prevailed,  and  on  commissioners  being  appointed  to  treat  with  the  Scots, 
Bruce  at  once  consented,  and  arrangements  were  made  for  carrying  on  the 
negotiations  with  all  celerity.  Safe-conducts  were  granted  by  Edward  for 
no  fewer  than  one  hundred  Scots  to  come  to  York,  and  the  king's  officials 
w^ere  instructed  to  receive  and  treat  them  with  all  honour.^  A  provisional 
truce  was  arranged,  and  the  terms  of  the  proposed  treaty  of  peace  were 
discussed  in  Parliament  at  York,  the  chief  managers  of  the  business  being 
Mortimer  for  the  English,  and  Douglas  for  the  Scots.^ 

It  was  only  now,  indeed,  that  Scotland  won  her  hard-fought-for  prize 
— her  national  independence — which  had  cost  her  war  for  so  many  long 

>■  Barbour's  Bruce,  pp.  465,  466.  *  Eymer's  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  pp.  719,  723,  728. 

-  Ibid.  p.  467.  ^  Walsingham,    p.    109  ;    Hailes'   Annals, 

^  Scalacronica,  p.  155.  vol.  ii.  p.  140. 


years.  But  it  had  also  cost  the  English  dear,  and  they  might  well  con- 
gratulate tliemselves  on  the  loss  of  such  a  possession,  whicli  to  them,  indeed, 
was  never  more  than  ideal.  It  was  fitting,  too,  that  Sir  James  of  Douglas, 
whose  father  had  borne  his  share  in  the  beginning  of  these  heroic  struggles, 
and  who  himself,  in  common  with  Wallace  and  with  Bruce,  had  contributed 
so  much  to  their  success,  should  now  in  Scotland's  name  receive  from 
Edward's  hands  the  reward  of  victory.  For  before  any  other  matter  was 
entered  upon,  it  was  demanded  by  Scotland,  and  yielded  by  a  decree  of  the 
English  Parliament,  that  Bruce  be  recognised  as  rightful  and  lawful  king  of 
Scotland,  and  Scotland  as  an  independent  kingdom,  all  right  or  claim  of 
superiority  being  renounced  by  the  Iving  of  England  for  ever.  To  confirm 
this,  Edward  authorised  his  commissioners  to  take  oath  upon  his  soul.^ 

An  enduring  peace  was  then  agreed  upon,  and,  to  seal  it,  the  marriage  of 
Prince  David  of  Scotland  to  the  sister  of  Edward  the  Third,  Princess  Joanna 
of  England,  was  arranged.  The  other  terms  of  the  treaty  were  likewise  most 
advantageous  and  favourable  to  Scotland,  and  it  was  ratified  by  Bruce  him- 
self and  the  English  commissioners,  at  Edinburgh,  on  17th  March,  and  by 
Edward,  at  Northampton,  on  4th  May  1328.2 

The  peace  was  also  the  occasion  of  the  restoration  to  Sir  James  Douglas 
of  the  barony  of  Fawdon,  in  Northumberland,  and  of  "all  the  other  lands  and 
tenements  and  rents  which  William  of  Douglas,  his  father,  had  held  in  the 
kingdom  of  England."  The  grant  was  made  at  Eltham,  in  the  county  of 
Kent,  on  12th  May  1329.=^ 

Bruce's  increasing  malady  prevented  him  from  gracing  with  his  own 
presence  the  nuptials  of  his  son,  the  young  Prince  David,  now  only  in  his 
fifth  year,  with  the  Princess  Joanna  of  the  Tower,  as  she  was  also  called,  from 
the  circumstance  of  her  having  been  born  in  that  fortress,  who  was  only  in 

^  Ist  March  1.32S.     Rymer's  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.   p.  730. 

»  Ibkl.  pp.  734,  735,  740,  741.  3  Vol.  iv.  of  this  work,  pp.  4,  5. 


her  seventh  year.  He,  however,  appointed  Douglas  and  Eandolph  to  take 
his  place.  They  accordingly  accompanied  the  Prince,  now  created  Earl  of 
Carrick,  from  Cardross  to  Berwick,  and  there,  in  the  king's  name,  received 
the  Princess  from  the  Queen  Dowager  of  England  and  the  English  commis- 
sioners,  for  neither  did  the  King  of  England  personally  take  part  in  the 
proceedings.  The  marriage  was  celebrated  in  Berwick  amidst  great  festivities 
and  rejoicing,  the  people  of  both  countries  fraternising  happily  together.^ 

Bruce  made  Cardross,  on  the  Clyde,  his  residence  during  the  last  years 
of  his  life,  and  it  was  there  that  he  was  seized  witli  the  fatal  attack  of 
his  illness  which  terminated  a  noble  and  eventful  career.  There,  too,  he  kept 
his  court,  at  which  Douglas  appears  frequently.  Bruce  was  not,  however, 
confined  to  his  mansion  on  the  banks  of  the  Clyde,  for  Douglas  was  with  him 
at  Glenluce  a  few  weeks  before  his  death.^  lie  was  again  at  Cardross  in 
the  month  of  May,  by  which  time  Bruce  was  aware  of  his  approaching 
dissolution,  and,  in  view  of  that  event,  was  employed  in  settling  his  worldly 
affairs.  On  the  10th  of  that  month  he  bestowed  the  lands  of  Esschelis 
or  East  Shiels,  in  Peeblesshire,  upon  AVilliam,  son  of  the  deceased  Sir 
James  Douglas  of  Lothian,  and  to  this  gift  Sir  James  of  Douglas  was 
a  witness.^  On  the  following  day  Bruce  granted  a  letter  of  protection 
to  the  Abbey  of  Melrose,  threatening  with  forfeiture  any  who  should  wrong 

^  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  470.  latter  held  the  position  of  Justiciar  of  Lothian, 

2  29th  March  1329.  Antiquities  of  Aber-  and  received  from  King  Ilobert  Bruce  several 
deenshire,  etc.,  vol.  iv.  p.  712.  substantial  acknowledgments  of  his  services. 

3  Registrum  Honoris  de  Morton,  vol.  ii.  His  son,  Sir  William  Douglas  of  Lothian, 
p.  29.  The  grandfathers  of  the  good  Sir  known  also  as  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale, 
James,  Lord  of  Douglas,  and  Sir  James  of  rose  to  higher  distinction  than  his  father, 
Douglas  de  Laudonia,  were  brothers.  These  and  may  be  said  to  have  succeeded  the  good 
two  knights,  thus  related,  from  the  similarity  Sir  James  in  popular  fame,  being  called  by 
of  their  names,  are  apt  to  be  confused  by  his  compatriots  "  The  Flower  of  Chivalry." 
historians,  but  they  are  carefully  distinguished  He  was  a  famous  leader  in  the  later  wars  of 
in  charters  in  which  their  names  occur.     The  independence. 


or  injure  the  monks,  and  commanding  all  who  exercised  judicial  authority 
throughout  the  realm  to  compel  the  debtors  of  tire  Abbey  to  pay  their 
obligations.  On  the  same  day,  the  king  also  caused  what  has  been  called 
his  death-bed  letter  to  be  written,  specially  addressed  to  his  son,  the  young 
Prince  David,  and  his  successors  on  the  throne,  enjoining  the  Prince  to 
protect  the  Abbey  from  spoilers,  and  to  aid  the  monks  in  every  way  possible 
in  the  building  of  tlieir  new  church ;  "  in  which,"  lie  says,  "  I  have  arranged 
that  my  heart  shall  be  buried."^ 

The  affecting  death-bed  scene  in  which  King  Kobert  the  Bruce  imposed 
upon  his  faithful  and  heroic  comrade  and  subject  the  hazardous  mission  of 
conveying  his  heart  to  the  holy  sepulchre  at  Jerusalem,  has  been  described 
by  Froissart  and  also  by  Barbour,  and  is  well  known.  Both  of  these  writers 
give  vivid  and  touching  sketches  of  what  took  place,  and  agree  in  the  main, 
though  differing  a  little  in  detail.  It  is  the  prelude  to  the  last  eventful 
scene  of  the  life  of  the  good  Sir  James.  Froissart's  narrative  is  very  graphic. 
In  it  lie  says  : — 

In  the  meantime  it  happened  that  King  Ptobert  of  Scotland  was  right 
sore,  aged  and  feeble,  for  he  was  greatly  charged  with  the  great  sickness,  so 
that  there  was  no  way  with  him  but  death.  And  when  he  felt  that  his  end 
ib-ew  near,  he  sent  for  such  barons  and  lords  of  his  realm  as  he  trusted  best, 
and  showed  them  how  that  there  was  no  remedy  with  him,  but  he  must 
leave  this  transitory  life.  He  commanded  them,  on  the  faith  and  truth  they 
owed  him,  truly  to  preserve  the  realm,  and  aid  the  young  Prince  David,  his 

»  Liber  de  Melros,  vol.  ii.  pp.  32S-330.  still  appended,  but  from  the  death-bed  letter 
These  two  letters,  which  are  in  dififerent  hand-  both  seal  and  tag  have  disappeared,  only  leav- 
writings,  are  preserved  in  the  collection  of  ing  a  mark  on  the  parchment  over  which  the 
charter  mimiments  which  belonged  to  the  tag  had  depended.  A  facsimile  of  the  death- 
Abbey  of  Melrose,  and  are  now  in  the  posses-  bed  letter  is  given  in  the  Liber  de  Mebos,  and 
sion  of  His  Grace  the  Duke  of  Buccleuch.  also  in  the  National  Manuscripts  of  Scotland, 
To  the  letter  of  protection  the  great  seal  is  vol.  ii.  No.  xxix. 


son,  whom,  when  he  became  of  age,  he  charged  them  to  crown  king,  and  give 
him  their  obedience.  Then  calling  to  his  side  the  gentle  knight  Sir  James  of 
Douglas,  he  thus  addressed  him  before  all  the  lords : — 

"  Sir  James,  my  dear  friend,  you  know  well  that  I  have  had  much  ado  in 
my  days  to  uphold  and  sustain  the  right  of  tliis  realm,  and  when  I  had  most 
difhculty,  I  made  a  solemn  vow,  which  as  yet  I  have  not  accomplished, 
whereof  I  am  right  sorry.  That  vow  was,  that  if  it  was  granted  me  to 
achieve  and  make  an  end  of  all  my  wars,  and  so  bring  this  realm  to  rest  and 
peace,  I  would  go  fortli  and  war  with  the  enemies  of  Christ,  the  adversaries 
of  our  holy  Christian  faith.  To  this  purpose  my  heart  hath  ever  intended. 
But  our  Lord  would  not  consent  hereto ;  for  I  have  had  so  much  to  do  in  my 
life,  and  now  in  my  last  enterprise  I  have  been  seized  with  such  a  malady 
that  I  cannot  escape.  Seeing,  therefore,  that  my  body  cannot  go  to  achieve 
what  my  heart  desireth,  I  will  send  my  heart,  instead  of  my  body,  to 
accomplish  my  vow.  And  because  I  know  not  in  all  my  realm  a  knight 
more  valiant  than  you,  or  better  able  to  accomplish  my  vow  in  my  stead, 
therefore  I  require  you,  my  own  dear  special  friend,  for  your  love  to  me,  and 
to  acquit  my  soul  against  my  Lord  God,  that  you  undertake  this  journey. 
In  your  nobleness  and  truth  I  so  confide  that  I  doubt  not  but  what  ye  take 
in  hand  ye  will  achieve ;  and  if  my  desires  be  carried  out  as  I  shall  declare 
unto  you,  I  shall  depart  in  peace  and  quiet. 

'•'  I  wish,  as  soon  as  I  am  dead,  that  my  heart  be  taken  out  of  my  body 
and  embalmed,  and  that,  taking  as  much  of  my  treasure  as  you  tliink 
requisite  for  yourself  and  the  company  corresponding  to  your  estate  which 
will  go  with  you  in  the  enterprise,  you  convey  my  heart  to  the  holy 
sepulchre  where  our  Lord  lay,  and  present  it  there,  seeing  my  body  cannot  go 
thither.  And  wherever  you  come  let  it  be  known  that  ye  carry  with  you 
the  heart  of  King  Eobert  of  Scotland,  at  his  own  instance  and  desire,  to  be 
presented  to  the  holy  sepulchre." 


Sir  James  and  all  the  surrounding  barons  were  unable  to  restrain  their 
tears ;  but  wlien  he  could  command  liis  speech,  Sir  James  replied,  "  Gentle 
and  noble  king,  a  hundred  times  I  thank  your  grace  for  the  great  honour  you 
confer  upon  me,  in  placing  in  my  charge  a  treasure  so  noble  and  so  great. 
And,  sire,  though  I  be  neither  worthy  nor  sufficient  for  such  a  noble 
enterprise,  I  shall,  with  a  glad  heart,  do  all  that  you  have  commanded  me, 
to  the  best  of  my  true  power." 

"  I  thank  you,  gentle  knight,"  said  the  king,  "  so  that  you  will  promise  to 
do  it." 

"  Undoubtedly,  sire,  I  shall,"  replied  Douglas,  "  by  the  faith  that  I  owe 
t<.)  God  and  to  the  order  of  true  knighthood." 

"  Then  I  thank  you,"  said  the  king,  "  for  now  I  shall  die  in  greater  ease 
of  mind,  seeing  I  know  that  the  most  worthy  and  sufficient  knight  in  my 
realm  shall  achieve  for  me  that  to  which  I  could  not  myself  attain."  ^ 

Barbour's  narrative  differs  only  in  this,  that  instead  of  Douglas  being  the 
king's  choice  alone,  he  was  elected  for  the  task  by  the  nobles  to  whom  Bruce 
confided  his  purpose,  desiring  them  to  select  one  of  themselves  for  its  execu- 
tion. Their  unanimous  choice,  says  Barbour,  fell  upon  the  "  douchty  Lord 
Douglas," — a  choice  which  was  but  the  echo  of  the  king's  own  heart,  and 
right  welcome  to  Douglas.- 

r>ruce  died  on  the  7th  of  June  1329,  and  was  buried  in  Dunfermline 
Abbey,  his  heart  being,  in  accordance  with  his  desire,  taken  from  his  body, 
carefully  embalmed,  and  placed  in  a  costly  silver  casket.  This  act  was 
in  contravention  of  the  papal  canons,  and  involved  the  sentence  of  exconi- 
nmnication,  as  some  time  afterwards,  in  August  1331,  Pope  John,  on  the 
petition  of  Randolph,  Earl  of  Moray,  granted  absolution  to  all  who  had 
participated  "  in  the  inhuman  and  cruel  treatment "  of  the  body   of  King 

1  Froissart's  Chronicles  (Lord  Berner's  translation),  vol.  i.  pp.  28,  29. 
-  The  Bruce,  pp.  472-475. 


Robert  the  Bruce.  This  document  narrates  the  fact  that  Bruce's  lieart 
had  been  carried,  at  his  own  desire,  by  the  deceased  James  of  Douglas,  a 
knight  of  Glasgow  (that  is,  of  the  diocese  of  Glasgow,  Douglasdale  beirig 
in  that  see),  into  Spain,  in  war  against  the  Saracens.  The  absolution  was 
directed  to  the  Bishop  of  Moray,  who  was  commanded  to  give  effect  thereto.^ 
From  the  reference  in  this  document  to  Spain,  Burton  has  inferred  that 
Bruce's  desire  was  that  his  heart  should  be  conveyed  thither  and  not  to 
Jerusalem.-  But  all  that  can  justly  be  inferred  is  that  Bruce's  heart  had 
been  taken  to  Spain.  There  is  otherwise  good  evidence  of  Bruce's  real  desire 
that  his  heart  should  be  taken  to  Palestine. 

In  preparing  to  carry  out  the  sacred  trust  committed  to  him.  Sir  Jarnes 
Douglas  applied  for  and  received  letters  of  safe-conduct  from  King 
Edward  the  Third,  for  that  portion  of  the  journey  to  the  Holy  Land  which 
might  lie  within  his  jurisdiction.  At  the  same  time,  the  Eucrlish  Kincr  tiave 
him  a  warm  letter  of  introduction  to  Alphonso,  King  of  Leon  and  Castile, 
requesting  that  monarch  to  treat  with  kingly  courtesy  the  world-renowned 
warrior,  who,  he  adds,  "  burning  with  love  of  the  crucified,  is  about  to  set  forth 
towards  the  Holy  Land,  to  the  aid  of  the  Christians  against  the  Saracens."  ^ 
Douglas,  however,  did  not  immediately  set  out  on  his  eastern  expedition,  but 
busied  himself  for  several  months,  indeed,  during  the  winter,  in  making 
preparations  on  a  princely  scale.  In  this  interval  he  also  set  his  own  house 
in  order. 

According  to  Wyutown,  Douglas  was,  unwittingly,  the  cause  of  the 
attempt  by  Edward  Baliol  to  seize  the  Scottish  throne.     In  the  exercise  of 

*  Theiner's  Monumenta  Hibernorum  et  Sco-  and  buried   in   a  separate  place — a  request 

toram,  p.  251.     The  question  may  have  been  which  was  granted  him. — [fhid.  p.  249.] 

raised  by  a  petition  addressed  by  Ilandolph  to  ^  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  ii.  p.  308. 

the  Pope  in  the  previous  year,  for  leave  to  have  -^  1st   September    1329;    vol.    iv.    of   this 

hia  heart  taken   from  his  body  after  death,  work,  pp.  5,  G. 


liis  powers  of  justiciary,  he  ordered  the  arrest  of  a  yeoman,  Twyname  Lowry- 
sown  by  name,  who  for  being  called  to  account  by  the  ecclesiastical  official  of 
Glasgow  for  his  licentious  life,  had  seized  the  official  (William  of  Eckfurd) 
in  the  town  of  Ayr,  and  compelled  him  to  pay  a  good  round  sum  of  money 
before  he  would  release  him.  As  both  Eandolph  and  Douglas  were  dealing 
out  strict  and  severe  justice  in  their  circuit  courts  to  those  who  were 
convicted  of  such  crimes,^  Lowrysown  knew  he  had  good  reason  to  fear 
the  result,  if  captured,  and  seeing  himself  unable  to  avoid  the  strict  search 
which  was  being  made  for  him  by  Douglas's  men,  he  stealthily  departed  b}' 
sea  to  France,  attached  himself  to  Edward  Baliol,  and  incited  him  to  his 
invasion  of  Scotland.- 

Before  his  departure  for  Palestine  Douglas  piously  conmiendod  his  soul 
to  the  prayers  of  the  Church,  especially  committing  himself  to  the  protection 
of  the  patron  saint  of  the  Douglas  family,  St.  Bride  or  Bridget,  on  whose 
commemoration  day  (February  1,  1329-30)  he  bestowed  on  the  Abbey  of 
Newbotle  the  half  land  of  Kuimad,  the  other  half  land  being  already  in  the 
possession  of  the  Abbey,  by  gift  of  the  deceased  Eoger  de  Quincy.  The  gift 
was  made  on  condition  that  a  choral  mass  should  be  performed  at  tlie  altar  of 
St.  Bride,  within  their  monastery,  on  her  day,  and  also  that  in  her  honour  the 
monks  should  on  the  same  day  feed  thirteen  poor  people.  The  object  of  this 
grant  was  that  St.  Bride  might  intercede  for  the  donor  with  God,  and  by  her 
merits  and  intercessions  purchase  what  was  needful  for  his  soul  and  body. 
If  the  monks  were  careless  or  negligent  in  carr}ang  out  these  conditions,  they 

'  It  is  related  of  Ilanilolph  at  this  time  that  the   effects  of  his   crime   against   the  law  of 

he  caused  hang  a  man  who  had  slain  a  priest,  the  land.     By  this  strict    severity,    and    by 

and  who  had   gone   to   Eome   and  purchased  making  the  local  magistrates  responsible  for 

absolution,  but  afterwards  returned  to  Scot-  crimes  committed,  he   is  said   to  have  made 

land.     For  though,  said  Randolph,  the  Pope  the  country  as  secure  as  a  man's  own  house, 

might  free  a  man  from  the  spiritual  punish-  [Wyntown's  Cronykil,  Book  viii.  chap.  24.J 

ment  of  his  guilt,  he  could  not  free  him  from  -  Ibid. 

VOL.  I.  Z 


ran  tlie  risk  of  forleitiug  the  grant,  wliicli  was  made  in  form  of  indenture  at 
Douglas's  own  place  of  the  Park  of  Douglas.^ 

It  would  seem  from  these  and  other  instances  of  beneficence  to  religious 
houses,  that  Douglas  had  a  considerable  regard  for  the  Church.  He  acted  as 
the  protector  of  some  of  the  religious  houses  within  the  south  of  Scotland, 
especially  in  times  of  disturbance.  For  example,  the  Prioiy  of  Coldingham 
found  it  to  their  profit  to  make  over  to  James,  Lord  of  Douglas,  their  town  of 
Swinton,  "for  his  counsel  and  to  have  his  aid  in  time  of  war,"  but  the  grant 
was  evidently  only  for  his  lifetime,  as  the  monks  endeavoured  to  recover  it 
after  his  death.-  He  also,  shortly  before  the  death  of  Bruce,  acted  as  an 
arbiter  in  a  dispute  between  the  Abbey  of  Paisley  and  the  monks  of  Sim- 
pringham  in  England.^  Sir  James  maintained  a  chaplain  of  his  own,  named 
Richard,  who  is  mentioned  in  connection  with  a  debt  of  twenty-six  shillings 
and  eightpence  from  lands  in  Ednam  belonging  to  the  Prior  of  Coldingliam 
at  Martinmas  1325.'* 

According  to  Barbour,  Douglas  took  his  departure  with  the  heart  of  Bruce 
from  Scotland  by  ship  from  Berwick,  and  sailed  direct  for  Spain,  landing 
in  that  country,  after  a  tempestuous  voyage,  at  the  port  of  "  Grand  Seville."  ^ 
Eroissart,  however,  is  more  circumstantial  in  his  narrative.  With  the  opening 
spring,  lie  says,  Douglas  hastened  his  preparations,  and  having  laid  in  great 
store  of  all  that  was  necessary,  he  took  ship  at  ]\Iontrose  and  sailed  for 
Sluys,  in  Flanders.  He  hoped  here  to  find  some  noble  men  who  would 
accompany  him  in  his  enterprise,  though  he  had  brought  a  princely  retinue 
with  him  from  Scotland.     This  consisted  of  a  knight-banneret,  and  seven 

1  Registrum  de  Xeubotle,  pp.  100,  101.  years,  and  was  finally  settled  only  in  1373,  in 

-  The     Priory     of     Coldingham     (Surtees  the  time  of  WUliaui,  first  Earl  of  Douglas. 

Society),  p.  21.  ■*  The  Priory   of    Coldingham,    Appendix, 

^  13th   February    1328-9.      Registrum   de  p.  iii. 

Passelet,  p.  28.     This  dispute  lasted  for  many  ''  The  Bruce,  pp.  478,  479. 


other  kui^^hts,  with  twenty-six  esquires  and  other  gentlemen  of  the  noblest 
families  of  Scotland.  His  table  displayed  regal  magnificence,  with  vessels  of 
gold  and  silver,  and  music  of  trumpets  and  clarions  and  drums,  as  if  he  had 
been  himself  King  of  Scotland.  All  who  came  to  visit  him  were  royally 
entertained,  according  to  their  rank,  "  with  two  maner  of  wynes  and  dyuerse 
manor  of  spices."  Douglas  remained  at  Sluys  twelve  days,  never  landing, 
but  making  his  headquarters  in  his  ship. 

After  that  time,  hearing  that  Alphonso,  King  of  Leon  and  Castile, 
was  warring  with  the  Saracen  King  of  Granada,  he  resolved  to  offer  his 
services  in  that  war,  and  thereafter  proceed  to  Palestine.  He  accordingly 
directed  his  course  towards  Spain,  and  lauded  at  Valencia,  whence  he  went 
straight  to  King  Alphonso,  who  lay  with  his  army  on  the  irontiers,  and  was 
honourably  received  and  entertained.  According  to  Barbour,  Douglas  was 
the  centre  of  the  chivalric  circle;  the  bravest  pressed  forward  to  see  and 
greet  one  of  so  much  renown.  Several  English  knights  were  at  this  time 
present  in  the  Court  of  Alphonso,  one  of  whom  was  highly  esteemed  for  his 
valiant  bearing,  testified  as  it  was  by  the  many  scars  he  bore  on  his  face. 
This  knight  had  heard  of  tlie  fame  of  Douglas,  and  longed  much  to  see  him, 
thinking  that  his  face  must  be  as  much  scarred  as  his  own.  To  his  astonish- 
ment, however,  Douglas  bore  a  wholly  uninjured  countenance,  and  on  the 
knight's  expressing  his  surprise,  Douglas  replied,  "  Praised  be  God  that  my 
hands  were  always  able  to  defend  my  head."  ^ 

The  armies  of  both  Spain  and  Granada  were  marshalled  near  Theba,  a 
castle  on  the  frontiers  of  Andalusia  and  Granada,  and  a  battle  was  imminent. 
According  to  Barbour,  Alphonso  gave  the  vanguard  of  his  army  to  Douglas, 
placing  under  his  command  all  the  other  foreign  knights  at  Court.  He 
represents  Douglas  as  rallying  his  men  before  the  action,  bidding  them  do 
well  and  fear  not,  seeing  that  heavenly  bliss  was  the  reward  of  all  who  died 

'  The  Bruce,  pp.  479,  4S0. 


in  the  service  of  God.  In  the  contlict  which  ensued  tlie  fcjaracens  were  routed 
and  fled,  and  were  pursued  hy  Douglas  with  such  impetuosity  that  few  could 
keep  up  with  the  chase.  He,  at  last,  finding  liiniself  supported  by  only  about 
ten  followers,  drew  rein  and  began  to  retire,  when  the  Moors,  seeing  so  few  of 
their  foes,  closed  in  upon  them.  Douglas  himself  might  have  escaped,  but 
seeing  Sir  William  Sinclair  of  Eoslin  in  the  midst  of  a  host  of  the  enemy, 
he  dashed  in  to  his  assistance.  It  was  in  vain.  The  Saracens  numbered 
twenty  to  one  of  their  opponents,  and  Sir  James  Douglas  fell  in  his 
gallant  attempt  to  rescue  his  countryman,  several  other  Scottish  knights, 
including  Sir  Walter  and  Sir  Uobert  Logan,  of  the  family  of  Eestalrig,  being 
also  slain. ^ 

By  some  chroniclers  it  is  further  added  that  before  joining  battle  Douglas 
took  the  casket  containing  Bruce's  heart,  which  he  bore  on  his  breast,  and 
threw  it  from  him  into  the  midst  of  the  ranks  of  the  infidels,  addressing  it 
thus — "  Onward  as  thou  wert  wont,  thou  noble  heart !  Douglas  will  follow 
thee."  Holland,  whose  allegorical  poem  of  "  The  Howlat "  was  written  abuut 
the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century,  relates  this  story  of  Bruce's  heart  being  cast 
forward  among  the  Moors.  He  was  also  the  first  to  make  the  statement, 
generally  ascribed  to  the  inventive  genius  of  Boece,  whose  history  was  not 
written  until  the  early  part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  that  Sir  James  of  Douglas 
went  first  to  Palestine,  presented  the  heart  of  his  late  royal  master,  with  many 
offerings  and  prayers,  to  the  Holy  Sepulchre,  and  having  got  it  hallowed,  re- 
hung  it  about  his  neck.  After  many  battles  with  the  infidels,  Douglas  was  on 
his  way  back  to  Scotland  with  his  sacred  charge,  presumably  for  its  burial  in 
Melrose  Abbey,  when  he  was  driven  by  stress  of  weather  on  the  coast  of 
Spain,  learned  that  the  Saracens  were  there  at  war  with  the  Christians,  and 
ottered  his  services,  with  the  result  that  he  was  slain  on  the  plains  of  Anda- 
lusia.- This  version  of  Douglas's  journey  is  likewise  adopted  by  Godscroft. 
I  The  Bruce,  pp.  4S1-4S3.  -  Holland's  Book  of  "The  Howlat,"  cantos  38  and  39. 

.,    '  •      fl*      ;'      Vi  «i 





M   •"    -         '   :*i'        if^  -^^■^A'^^- 

;t   ^ 





,  /  ■ . 

■  -.»«> 



>  is'^ 

"V  ' 




4.*  ■■- 


V":     :       ...  .:    .Ill 


1^1  If 








'N    ST     BRIDES.-    DOUGLAS. 


Froissart  differs  from  Barbour  somewhat  ia  his  narrative  of  the  battle. 
According  to  him  Douglas  was  in  command  only  of  his  own  men  upon  one  of 
the  flanks  of  Alphonso's  army.  Seeing  an  advance  being  made,  and  thinking 
it  was  to  action,  wishing  also  to  be  amongst  the  foremost  rather  than  the 
hindmost,  he  ordered  his  company  to  charge,  which  they  did,  raising  their 
wonted  battle-cry,  "  Douglas !  Douglas  !"  He  had  thought  the  Spanish  army 
at  his  back,  but  they  had  halted  again,  "  and  so,"  he  says,  "  this  gentle 
knight  was  enclosed  and  all  his  company  -with  the  Sarazyns,  where  as  he  dyd 
menielles  in  armes,  but  fynally  he  coulde  nat  endure,  so  that  he  and  all  his 
company  were  slayne."^  This  fatal  battle  was  fought  on  the  25th  of  August 
1330.-  All  the  Scottish  companions  in  arms  of  Douglas,  however,  were  not 
slain,  and  those  that  remained,  having  found  the  body  of  their  leader,  and 
the  casket  he  so  sacredly  treasured,  rescued  both,  and  departed  homewards  in 
deep  soiTow.  Bruce's  heart  was  reverently  buried  in  the  Abbey  of  ]Melrnse, 
and  the  remains  of  Sir  James  of  Douglas  were  laid  to  rest  in  the  kirk  of  St. 
Bride  in  his  native  valley.  A  monument,  erected  to  his  memory  by  his  son, 
Sir  Archibald  the  Grim,  Lord  of  Galloway,^  probably  about  the  year  1390, 
after  his  succession  as  third  Earl  of  Douglas,  still  exists  in  the  Douglas  aisle 
of  the  former  church  of  St.  Bride.     It  is  thus  described  by  Blore  : — 

"  The  monument  which  tradition  has  assigned  to  the  celebrated  warrior 
we  have  just  been  noticing  is  on  the  north  side  of  the  Douglas  aisle.  The 
effigy  is  of  dark  stone,  cross-legged.  The  right  hand  has  been  represented 
in  the  act  of  drawing  the  sword,  the  scabbard  of  which  is  held  by  the  left. 
Owing,  however,  to  the  injury  the  figure  has  sustained,  the  right  arm  and 
hand  are  broken  off  and  lost,  from  the  shoidder  downwards,  as  in  the 
corresponding  leg  from  the  knee.     The  long-pointed  shield  which  he  hears 

^  Froiasart's  Chronicles  (Lord  Bemers'  translation),  vol.  i.  pp.  30,  31. 

'  Hailes'  Annals,  vol.  ii.  p.  lol  ;  Fordun's  Annalia,  edition  1871,  p.  353. 

^  Barbour's  Bruce,  p.  487.     It  is  described  as  of  "  alabastre." 


on  his  left  arm  is  without  armorial  bearing,  and  much  broken.  The  "-eneral 
style  of  the  figure  is  rather  rude,  with  the  exception  of  the  folds  of  the 
drapery  of  the  surcoat,  which,  in  many  parts,  are  simple  and  well  arranged. 
The  armour  is  destitute  of  the  slightest  indication  of  chain  work ;  and  it  is 
therefore  probable  that  a  different  material  was  intended  to  be  represented, 
or  that  the  chain  work  was  indicated  by  colours  now  obliterated.  The  feet 
rest  against  the  mutilated  remains  of  an  animal,  probably  a  lion.  .  .  .  The 
arch,  under  wliich  the  efligy  is  placed,  appears  to  be  of  rather  more  modern 
date,  is  of  elegant  design,  and  excellent  workmanship.  The  shield  under  the 
canopy  of  the  arch  contains  the  heart,  an  addition  to  the  armorial  bearings 
of  the  family,  granted  in  consequence  of  his  mission  to  the  Holy  Land,  but 
the  three  mullets  (stars)  are  now  completely  obliterated." 

Blore  also  points  out  that  though  the  style  of  architecture  of  this  monu- 
ment is  anterior  to  the  time  of  the  Good  Sir  James,  it  was  so  only  in  England, 
as  in  Scotland  the  progress  of  art  rather  followed  than  kept  pace  with  their 
wealthier  neighbour.  The  English,  while  in  possession  of  Douglasdale 
during  the  wars  of  independence,  were  so  enraged  at  the  Douglases,  that  it 
is  improbable  they  would  permit  the  monuments  of  the  family,  if  any  then 
existed,  to  remain.  These  circumstances,  and  the  fact  that  the  size  and 
proportions  of  the  effigy  agree  with  the  recorded  descriptions  of  Sir  James's 
person,  point  to  the  conclusion  that  the  monument  is  his.  The  injuries 
sustained  by  it  and  the  other  monuments  were,  according  to  local  tradition, 
the  work  of  Cromwell's  soldiers  during  his  siege  of  the  castle  in  1651.^ 

"This  noble  James,"  says  Fordun,  in  taking  his  leave  of  this  redoubtable 
warrior,  "  was  in  his  day  a  brave  hammerer  of  the  English,  and  the  Lord 
bestoWed  so  much  grace  upon  him  in  his  life  that  he  everywhere  triumphed 
over  the  English."-  Bower  gives  a  curious  alliterative  acrostic  in  Latin  upon 
Sir  James,  which  he  attributes  to  the  pen  of  the  Archdeacon  of  Aberdeen, 

^  Blore's  Monumental  Remains,  No.  5.  -  Fordun,  a  Goodall,  vol,  ii.  \>.  301. 


who  recorded  so  many  of  the  brave  deeds  of  the  Douglas  in  his  book  of  the 
Bruce.  He  also  gives  other  Latin  verses,  which  are  apparently  his  own.^ 
Godscroft,  too,  produces  a  Latin  stanza  on  the  death  of  the  Good  Sir  James, 
the  author  of  which  he  appears  not  to  know,  while  he  also  quotes  the  follow- 
ing popular  rhyme  long  current  in  Scotland,  and  which  preserved  among  his 
countrymen  the  memory  of  their  illustrious  benefactor,  even  amongst  those 
who  had  not  seen  him — 

"  Good  Sir  James  Douglas,  who  wise,  and  wicht,  and  worthy  was, 
Was  never  overglad  for  no  wuiuiug,  nor  yet  over  sad  for  no  tineing, 
Good  fortune  and  evil  chance,  he  weighed  both  in  one  balance."  ^ 

Glowing  panegyric  on  a  career  which  closed  in  so  chivalric  a  manner 
is  altogether  unnecessary.  The  history  of  Douglas  bespeaks  his  valour  and 
his  virtue.  He  aspired  to  no  higher  honour  than  the  love  and  esteem  of 
his  sovereign,  though  none  of  Bruce's  doughty  chieftains  more  deserved  great 
honours,  whether  from  devotedness  or  length  of  service.  Edward  Bruce 
obtained  the  earldom  of  Carrick,  and  Eandolph  the  rich  earldom  of  Moray, 
but  Douglas  bore  no  personal  titles  save  those  which  indicated  inheritance 
of  his  own  paternal  lordship,  and  the  simple  knighthood  conferred  upon  him 
in  presence  of  the  whole  Scottish  army,  arrayed  at  Bannockburn.  The  title 
of  the  "  Good  Sir  James,"  so  universally  applied  to  the  subject  of  this  memoir, 
may  be  considered  his  highest  honour. 

Among  other  tokens  of  love  and  esteem  for  his  noble  subject,  there 
is  generally  reported  to  have  been  a  sv/ord,  believed  to  have  been  given  by 
Bruce  on  his  deathbed  to  Sir  James.  The  sword,  which  is  about  three  feet 
long  and  an  inch  and  a  half  broad  at  the  hilt,  and  was  probably  not  a  weapon 
used  in  warfare,  but  a  sword  of  State,  still  exists  among  the  heirlooms  of 
Douglas  Castle.     On  one  side  of  the  blade  is  the  engraving  of  a  heart,  to 

^  Fordun,  a  Goodall,  vol.  iL  pp.  301,  302. 

-  History  of  the  Houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus,  1 644,  p.  52. 


which  two  hands  point,  over  the  one  hand  being  the  letters  K-  R  B.,  and  over 
the  other  the  letters  I.  L.  D.  On  the  other  side  of  the  blade  are  depicted 
within  a  shield  the  royal  arms  of  Scotland,  the  lion  rampant  within  the 
double  tressure.  The  shield  is  surmounted  by  a  crown.  The  following 
legend  is  also  inscribed  on  the  two  sides  of  the  weapon : — 

"  So  mony  gvid  as  of  the  Dovglas  beine, 
Of  ane  svrname,  vser  never  in  Scotland  seine. 

I  wil  ye  charge,  efter  that  I  depart. 

To  Holy  gravfe,  and  thair  bvry  my  hart : 

Let  it  remane  ever,  bothe  tyme  and  hovr, 
To  the  last  day  I  sie  my  Saviovr. 

So  I  protest  in  tyme  of  al  my  ringe, 
Ye  lyk  subiectis  had  never  ony  keing." 

This  relic  was  nearly  lost  to  the  family  on  the  occasion  of  the 
rebellion  of  1745,  as  in  their  retreat  from  Preston  the  followers  of  Prince 
Charles  Edward  took  up  their  quarters  for  a  time  in  Douglas  Castle,  and 
carried  the  sword  away  with  them  when  they  left.  Only  after  some 
troublesome  negotiations  with  the  rebel  leaders,  was  the  sword  recovered 
and  replaced  in  the  castle  by  the  Duke  of  Douglas. 

In  all  previous  memoirs  of  Sir  James  Douglas  it  has  been  assumed  that  he 
died  unmarried,  and  without  leaving  lawful  issue.  Although  the  name  of  his 
wife  has  not  been  ascertained,  yet  it  appears  that  he  was  married,  as  he  left 
a  son,  William,  who  succeeded  him  as  Lord  of  Douglas,  as  shown  in  the 
following  memoir.  He  had  also  a  natural  son,  Archibald,  surnamed  the 
Grim,  who  became  Lord  of  Galloway,  and  afterwards  succeeded  as  tliii-d  Earl 
of  Douglas,  on  the  death  of  his  cousin,  James,  the  second  Earl.  Of  him 
also  a  memoir  is  given  in  its  proper  place. 

p^-'-"'S^rvm^^if<^!PtS>9  Tai"!'^'^*"''^  "'"^  "^  ">    '■''^^^'^'^•'''■vwaR^.snBeiswgssjsswTjjnKr^ 


























ji8fcVai!S.-W^*»Sii«2?  -..^ 





■•i  ! 

•iriWSSbiScfeift-:  •/ '.  *i!'t^;Iilfc«iaiSei':>'  ■ 





SIR  JAMES  DOUGLAS  was  succeeded  in  his  possessions,  and  in  the 
territorial  designation  of  Lord  of  Douglas,  by  a  son  William,  whose 
existence  has  hitherto  been  overlooked  by  all  historians.  Even  where 
the  evidence  re^-arding  hira  has  been  noticed  by  authors  or  editors,  it  has 
been  treated  by  them  as  erroneous,  or  applied  to  some  other  member  of 
the  Douglas  family.  This  may  be  accounted  for  partly  by  the  brevity  of 
his  career,  and  partly  by  the  evidence  which  exists  regarding  him  being 
limited.  But  that  evidence,  though  scanty,  is  quite  conclusive  of  the 
fact  that  William  Douglas  inherited  as  Lord  of  Douglas  in  succession  to  his 
father,  the  Good  Sir  James. 

The  earliest  proof  of  that  succession  is  furnished  by  the  following  entries 
in  the  Exchequer  account  of  Reginald  More,  chamberlain  of  Scotland,  for 
the  period  between  Uth  March  and  14th  December  1331  :— 

"Et  de  ix'^xxxiij  H  \f  viij'^  receptis  de  Willelmo  domino  de  Duglas,  ex 
nmtuo.  Et  de  iiij<=  H  receptis  de  nunciis  domini  Rape  ex  mutuo,  in  defectum 
.sexcentarum  marcarum  debitarum  per  dominum  de  Duglas,  per  finem  factum 
pro  ingressu  terrarum  suarum."  ^ 

•  Original  MS.  Roll,  No.  XXI.,  in  H.M.  John  Davidson,  W.S.,  in  the  year  1771  ;  re- 
General  Register  House,  Edinburgh.  Thepor-  printed  by  Lord  Hailes  [Annals,  vol.  iii. 
tion  of  the  roll  in  which  these  entries  occur  p.  362] ;  (2)  by  Air.  Thomas  Thomson  [Cham- 
has  been  several  times  printed— (I)  by  Mr.  berlain   Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  226],   in  each  case 

VOL.  I. 

2  A 


i.e.  [He  burdens  himself]  with  £933,  6s.  8d.  received  from  William,  Lord 
uf  Douglas,  upon  L^an  ;  and  with  £400,  received  from  the  Pope's  uuucios  upon 
loan  in  default  of  six  hundred  merks  (£400)  due  by  the  Lord  of  Douglas  as  a 
line  imposed  for  entry  to  his  lands. 

These  money  transactions  apparently  imply  that  William  Douglas  lent  tu 
the  Government  a  sum  of  £933,  6s.  8d.,  and  then  borrowed  from  the  Pope's 
nuncios,  or  permitted  the  Chamberlain  to  borrow  on  his  behalf,  the  sum  of 
£400,  which  was  the  amount  of  the  fine  due  to  the  Crown  as  superior.  In 
any  case,  the  proof  is  clear  that  W^illiam  was  Lord  of  Douglas. 

The  evidence  as  to  William  Douglas,  Lord  of  Douglas,  seems  to  have  been 
unknown  to  Godscroft.  He  stated  that  Sir  James  Douglas  had  two  natural  sons, 
William  and  Archibald,  and  that  William  was  the  famous  Knight  of  Liddesdale, 
otherwise  called  the  "  Flower  of  Chivalry."^  In  that  assertion  he  has  been  fol- 
lowed by  more  recent  writers,  including  Tytler,-  and  even  Mr.  Cosmo  Innes.^ 
^Ir.  Ptiddell,  in  one  of  his  works,  combats  the  statement  of  Mr.  Innes,  and 
shows  that  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale  was  the  lawful  son  of  Sir  James  Doucrlas 
of  Lothian,'*  a  statement  abundantly  proved  at  a  later  date  by  the  Charter 
muniments  of  the  House  of  ]\Iorton.°  But  ^Ix.  Piddell  did  not  in  that  work, 
or  in  any  of  his  other  works  in  which  he  treats  of  the  Douglas  family,  show  that 
Sir  James  had  a  son  named  William  who  succeeded  him  as  Lord  of  Douglas. 

If  the  evidence  quoted  from  the  Exchequer  Polls  stood  alone,  there  might 
have  been  hesitation  in  giving  full  weight  to  it,  after  the  long-continued  belief 
that  Hugh  Douglas  was  the  immediate  successor  of  his  brotlier,  Sir  James. 
But  from  other  and  wholly  independent  sources  there  is  undoubted  evidence 

without  comment ;  and  (3)  by  Mr.   Burnett  .  ^  Houses  of  Douglas  and  Angus,  ed.  1644, 

[Exchequer   KoUa,  vol.  i.    p.    390],  who   ex-  p.  52.          -  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  i.  p.  3S3. 

presses  an  opinion  that  the  name  of  William,  '^  IJegistrum  Episcopatus  Glasguensis,  vol.  i. 

as  given  in  the  roll,  is  erroneous,  and  that  it  p.  xxxviii.          .    ^  Stewartiana,  pp.  S3,  84. 

should  be  Hugh.     [/^ii.  Preface,  p.  cxi,  note;  •^  Eegistrum  Honoris  de  Morton,   2  vols.. 

Index,  p.  650.]  Bannatyne  Club. 


regarding  William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  and  that  he  was  in  possession  of  tlie 

estates   which    belonged  to    his  father,  Sir  James.     The   latter,  during  the 

wars  with  England,  had  received  from  the  monks  of  Coldingham  a  grant  of 

the  lands  of  Swinton,  in  Berwickshire,  and  after  his  death  a  question  arost- 

between  the  monks  and  his  heirs  as  to  these  lands.     The  monks  took  their 

complaint  to  the  Court  of  King  David  the  Second,  and,  their  testimony  being 

important,  they  may  here  be  allowed  to  tell  their  own  story  in  a  translatiuii 

of  their  letter  from  the  original  ISTormau  French : — 

To  the  most  honourable  Priuce  and  their  liege  lord,  David,  by  the  grace  of  God, 
King  of  Scotland,  to  his  good  Council,  their  devoted  chaplains,  Adam,  prior  of  Colding- 
ham, and  the  convent  of  the  same  place,  show  that  William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  and 
Archibald,  his  uncle,  wrongfully  against  God  and  the  law  of  holy  church,  detain  from 
them  their  town  of  Swynton,  which  was  granted  to  the  honourable  man  Sir  James, 
lately  Lord  of  Douglas,  for  his  counsel,  and  to  have  his  aid  in  time  of  war,  by  a 
simple  monk  who  had  no  power  to  grant  the  said  town  in  that  manner  against  the 
interests  of  the  house  of  Coldingham.  And  before  the  departure  of  the  said  Lord  of 
Douglas  from  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  they  were  in  sure  hope  of  recovering  their 
said  town,  because  it  was  so  granted  to  him  against  tlie  welfare  of  their  house,  by  a 
person  who  had  no  power.  And  since  the  said  lord  was  commended  to  God,  they 
have,  with  great  labour  and  expense  in  several  places,  made  suit  to  the  executors  of 
the  said  lord  to  obtain  their  favour  ;  in  which  executors  the  ordering  and  administra- 
tion remains  by  the  law  of  holy  church,  as  also  of  his  other  moveable  goods  ;  and  of 
their  compassion,  so  far  as  lies  in  their  power,  they  have  graciously  granted  their 
petition.  But  by  the  will  and  force  of  William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  and  Archibald,  his 
uncle,  they  are  wrongfully  disturbed  in  their  said  town,  to  their  loss,  valued  at  two 
hundred  pounds.  Wherefore  the  said  prior  and  convent  pray,  for  God  and  the  soul  of 
their  nmch  honoured  lord  Sir  Robert,  late  King  of  Scotland,  whom  God  assoil,  seeing 
that  the  house  of  Coldingham  was  founded  by  the  alms  of  the  Kings  of  Scotland, 
your  ancestors,  and  the  town  of  Swynton  is  the  chief  part  of  its  sustenance,  that  you 
may  be  pleased  to  ordain  a  remedy,  pleasing  to  God  and  holy  church,  fur  this  wrongful 

'   liCtter  to  the   King  of  Scotland  by  the       A.  vi.  fol.  ol.]     Printed  in  Priory  of  Colding- 
Prior  of  Coldingham  respecting  the  town  of       ham,  Surtees  Society,  pp.  21,  22. 
Swyuton,    wrongfully    detained.       [Faustina, 


This  important  document  is  conclusive  evidence  of  the  successor  of  Sir 
James.  It  would  also  appear  that  William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  "was  in  some 
way  under  the  tutelage  or  guidance  of  his  uncle.  Sir  xVrchibald  Douglas, 
who  shortly  afterwards  was  made  Eegent  of  Scotland.^ 

The  next  reference  to  AVilliam  Douglas,  the  young  Lord  of  Douglas,  is 
in  the  narrative  of  the  fatal  field  of  Halidon  Hill,  whither  he  followed  hh 
uncle,  the  Eegent.  He  was,  however,  not  among  his  uncle's  immediate 
attendants,  but  was  in  the  division  commanded  by  the  young  Steward  of 
Scotland,  who  also,  like  the  youthful  Douglas,  had  been  taken  to  that  cam- 
paign to  win  his  spurs.  As  is  well  known,  the  Scots  were  defeated,  and 
left  many  of  their  nobles  and  knights  either  dead  on  the  field,  or  captive 
in  the  hands  of  the  English.  The  Itegent  was  taken,  mortally  wounded, 
and  his  nephew,  "William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  was  slain. 

Knyghton,  the  historian,  distinctly  states  that  the  son  of  James  Douglas 
of  that  Ilk,  "  "VVillielmus  Douglas  filius  lacobi  ejus[dem],"  was  present  at 
the  battle.-  Lord  Hailes,  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  William  Douglas  as 
a  son  of  Sir  James,  suggests  a  correction.  "  Eather  Archibald,"  he  says,  "  the 
natural  son  of  the  renowned  Sir  James  Douglas."-^  But  there  is  corroborative 
evidence  that  Knyghton  was  accurate  in  his  statement  regarding  the  son  of  Sir 
James  Douglas.  Sir  Thomas  Grey,  the  author  of  the  Scalacronica,  who  wrote 
before  Knyghton,  and  almost  contemporaneously  with  the  events  he  records, 
enumerates  in  his  list  of  tlie  slain  at  Halidon,  among  "  many  barons,  knights, 
and  commons,"  "  the  Lord  of  Douglas,  son  of  James  of  Douglas,  who  was 
slain  by  the  Saracens  on  the  frontiers  of  Granada,  during  that  pious  journey 

^  On  September  IS,    1330,  an  action  was  Archibald,  who,  acting  for  his   nephew  Wil- 

raised  at  the  instauce  of  the  parson  of  Angram  liara,  intromitted  with  the  lands  of  Fawdou. 

or  Ingram  Church,  Xorthnmberlaud,  against  v.-hich  had  been  restored  to  tjir  James  Douglas 

Archibald  Douglas,  regarding  common  pasture  in  13'2'J. 

in  Fawdon  [Patent,  4  Edward  iii.  p.  1,  m.  8,  -  Knyghton,  a/md  Twysden,  p.  2564. 

Public  Ptecord  Office].     This  was  proV>ably  Sir  ^   Bailos"  Annak,  vol.  iii.  p.  90. 

DEA  TU  A  T  HAL  ID  OX  HIL  Z,   1 3  3  3.  189 

taken  with  the  heart  of  his  king,  Eobeit  the  Bruce,  at  his  dying  request."  ^ 
This  is  conclusive  on  the  point  that  Sir  James  Douglas  had  a  son,  William, 
who  fell  at  Ilalidon.  Any  discrepancy  between  Knyghton,  who  says  the 
young  Lord  of  Douglas  was  taken  prisoner,  and  the  statement  that  he  was 
slain,  may  be  reconciled  by  supposing  that  the  young  man,  like  his  uncle, 
the  llegent,  was  mortally  wounded,  and  expired  in  the  hands  of  his  captors. 

Tliis  evidence  also  proves  that  the  young  Lord  of  Douglas  and  his 
namesake,  William  Douglas,  afterwards  Knight  of  Liddesdale,  were  two 
distinct  persons.  The  former  died  on  or  immediately  after  the  field  of  Hali- 
don  ;  the  latter  was  at  that  time  a  close  prisoner  in  the  castle  of  Carlisle 
from  wliich  he  was  not  released  till  some  time  afterwards.-  The  whole 
evidence  adduced  from  the  Scottish  Exchequer  Eolls  and  the  Eecords  of 
Coldingham,  as  well  as  from  the  contemporary  English  chroniclers  above 
quoted,  leaves  no  doubt  that  the  Good  Sir  James  left  a  legitimate  son, 
William,  who  succeeded  his  father  as  Lord  of  Douglas,  but  whose  career 
was  cut  short  at  Halidon,  on  19th  July  1333. 

At  the  time  of  his  death,  William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  was  apparently  under 
age,  and  probably  unmarried.  He  was  succeeded  in  the  Douglas  estates  by 
his  uncle  Hugh,  who  became  Lord  of  Douglas.  It  would  appear  that  the 
feudal  investiture  of  William,  as  heir  to  Sir  James,  was  never  formally 
completed,  as  in  the  entail  of  the  Douglas  lands  executed  in  1312,  Hugh, 
Lord  of  Douglas,  is  described  as  heir  of  his  late  brother.  Sir  James.  He  must 
therefore  have  made  up  his  title  to  his  brother.  Sir  James,  as  the  last  vassrJ 
of  the  Crown  infeft  in  the  lauds,  passing  over  his  nephew  William,  whose 
title  was  incomplete,  although  the  money  payment  exigible  on  his  succession, 
or  part  of  it,  seems  to  have  been  accounted  for  to  the  Crown. 

A  small  brass  seal-stamp  of  William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  was,  according  to 

^  Scalacrnnica,  p.  1G3. 

2  Fordiin,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  310;  Clironicon  de  Lanercost,  pp.  273,  278. 



local  tradition,  found  in  the  year  1788  under  the  east  end  of  the  (;hurch  of 
North  Berwick,  near  the  ruins  of  the  Douglas  family  burial  vault  there. 
The  vault  was  destroyed  by  a  violent  storm  in  1774,  and  several  stone  cofiius 
were  thrown  down.'^  The  seal  is  of  tasteful  design,  displaying  a  sliield  on 
which  is  a  fess  surmounted  by  the  three  mullets  in  chief,  and  a  man's  heart 
in  base.     The  shield  is  surrounded  by  tracery  work,  and  the  legend — 


That  seal  may  have  been  made  for  and  used  by  the  subject  of  this  memoir, 
although  it  has  generally  been  assigned  to  the  first  Earl  of  Douglas  previous 
to  his  creation  as  EarL  Its  style  is  that  of  the  earlier  half  of  the  fourteenth 
century,  and  the  workmanship  is  said  to  show  care  and  skill.  The  rirst  Earl 
had  at  least  four  armorial  seals,  which  are  well  known.  They  all  ditier 
from  this  seal  of  \yilliam,  Lord  of  Douglas,  as  it  alone  has  the  fess,  without 
the  chief  which  is  found  in  all  the  others. 

If  this  seal  be  that  of  William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  the  son  and  successor  of 
Sir  James,  it  shows  that  the  heart  was  introduced  into  the  armorial  bearings 
of  the  Douglas  family  immediately  after  the  death  of  the  Good  Sir  James. 

^  Carte  de  Xorth  Berwic,  Preface,  p.  xxxvi.        from  the  original  in  tlie  possession  of  Sir  Hew 
Laing's  Scottish  Seals,  vol.  i.  p.  46,  No.  249.       Dalrymple,  Baronet,  of  North  Berwick. 
An  engraving  of  the  seal  is  annexed,  made 





rnHE  retired  life  led  by  Hugh,  Lord  of  Douglas,  and  his  obscurity  in  history 
-^  as  compared  with  the  brilliant  careers  and  stirring  lives  of  his  two 
brothers.  Sir  James  and  Sir  Archibald,  have  led  to  the  behef  that  he  laboured 
under  some  mental  or  bodily  intirmity.  Godscroft,  who  is  usually  voluble  in 
praise  of  his  heroes,  only  says  regarding  this  member  of  tlie  family,  tliat 
nothing  is  found  of  his  actions  "  worthie  of  memorie.  .  .  .  lie  was  neythur 
proper  for  employments,  nor  actually  alsoe  medled  he  himself  with  publicke 
affaires  or  matters  of  State,  either  in  peace  or  warre."^  But  there  is  evidence 
to  show  that  this  character  was  undeserved,  and  that  the  statement  of 
Godscroft  was  made  in  ignorance  of  the  real  position  of  Hugh  Douglas,  wla., 
lived  a  life  of  peace,  and  took  no  active  part  in  public  affairs,  not  from 
incapacity,  either  bodily  or  mental,  but  because,  as  a  Churchman,  he  was 
debarred  from  those  military  pursuits  in  which  his  brothers  excelled. 

Hugh,  Lord  of  Douglas,  was  the  elder  of  two  sons  of  Sir  William  Douglas 
"  Le  Hardi,"  by  his  second  wife,  Eleanor  Ferrers,  and  was  born  in  England 

^  MS.  History  at  Hamilton  Palace.    Found-  Douglas."     The  Marquis  was  misled  by  Gods- 

ing  on  a  surmise  by  Godscroft  as  to  the  "dul-  croft's  statement,  and  both  were  ignorant  of 

nesse  of  mind"  of  Hugh  Douglas,  William,  the   real   position  of  Hugh   Douglas,   whose 

rtrst    Marquis    of    Douglas,    inserted    in    the  memory   is    only  now    vindicated    from    the 

margin  of  the   lis.    the   epithet,    "The  Dull  imputation  of  imbecility. 


ill  tlio  year  1204.  This  appears  from  a  return  by  the  Sheriff  of  Essex  and 
Hertford  shcjrtly  after  April  129G,  wlio  was  employed  to  value  the  manors 
iif  Stehbing  and  otiiers  in  these  counties  belonging  to  Sir  AVilliam  Douglas, 
and  to  confiscate  them  to  the  English  king.  Besides  the  goods  seized,  the 
Sheriff  made  a  more  interesting  capture,  which  he  describes  as  a  son  of 
William  Douglas  of  Scotland,  named  Hugii,  nearly  two  years  old.  This  boy 
had  f)een  left  in  the  custody  of  John  le  Parker  at  Stebbing,  and  as  he  had 
l)een  born  in  England,  the  Sheriff  arrested  or  detained  him  in  safe  keeping 
until  he  should  receive  further  instructions.^ 

Eor  a  period  of  many  years  from  this  point  nothing  has  been  discovered 
regarding  the  life  of  Hugh  Douglas.  How  long  he  was  detained  in  England 
does  not  appear,  but  the  next  reference  to  him  shows  that  he  had  been 
educated  for  the  Church,  had  embraced  that  calling,  and  was  a  Canon  of  the 
Cathedral  Church  of  Glasgow.  The  first  evidence  of  his  acting  in  that 
capacity  was  an  important  meeting  of  the  chapter  of  the  diocese  of  Glasgow, 
held  on  IGth  May  1325,  when  he  would  be  about  thirty-one  years  of  age. 
The  ritual  and  constitution  of  the  Cathedral  of  Sarum  (or  Salisbury)  had 
been  adopted  as  the  constitution  of  the  Cathedral  of  Glasgow  so  early  as  the 
year  1258,  with  the  saving  clause,  "unless  it  shall  be  found  injurious"  to  the 
Canons.  The  disturbed  state  of  Scotland  during  the  wars  of  independence, 
and  for  many  years  after  Bannockbum,  had  doubtless  affected  the  Church, 
and  prevented  full  adherence  to  the  constitution.  In  1322,  however,  a  peace 
was  concluded  with  England  which  lasted  for  a  few  years,  and  gave  repose 
to  both  countries  for  some  time.  This  interval  of  rest  was  chosen  by  the 
Canons  of  Glasgow  to  renew  their  obligation  to  the  statutes  of  the  Church  of 
Salisbury,  which,  they  say,  "  have  been  granted  and  observed  in  our  Church 
of  Glasgow  from  a  time  of  which  no  memory  exists."     On  this  occasion  no 

^  SherifTs  Accounts,  Public  Record  Office,  London.     Cf.  Stevenson's  Historical  Documents, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  43,  44. 


reservation  was  made  as  to  acceptance,  but  the  Canons  bound  themselves  tu 
keep  the  statutes  inviolable.  Hugh  of  Douglas  was  not  personally  present 
at  this  important  meeting,  but  a  brother  Canon,  Richard,  called  Small, 
afterwards  Dean  of  Glasgow,  acted  as  his  procurator.^ 

"What  prebend  Hugh  of  Douglas  held  at  this  time  as  a  Canon  of  the 
Church  of  Glasgow,  is  not  apparent.  At  a  later  date  he  held  the  rectory  or 
jirebend  of  Old  lioxburgh,  which  was  one  of  those  that  gave  its  occupant  a 
right  tu  a  stall  in  the  church  and  a  seat  in  the  chapter.  If  Old  Eoxburgh,  or 
some  other  prebend  of  Glasgow,  was  held  by  Hugh  Douglas  at  this  time,  we 
may  think  of  him  as  quietly  fultilling  his  duties  of  parish  priest,  with  an 
occasional  visit  to  Glasgow  as  his  post  in  the  cathedral  required.  Such  at 
least  might  be  his  lot  during  the  reign  of  King  Robert  Bruce  and  the  lives 
(if  his  brother  Sir  James,  and  the  Regent  Randolph.  But  it  is  probable  that 
this  peaceful  career  was  interrupted  by  the  turbulent  times  which  followed 
the  deaths  of  these  three  great  leaders,  and  the  disasters  which  befell  Scotland 
at  the  battles  of  Dupplin  and  Halidon  Hill.  Hugh  Douglas  survived  both 
his  brothers  and  also  his  nephew,  "William  Douglas,  the  son  of  Sir  James, 
who,  as  related  in  the  previous  memoir,  was  slain  at  Halidon.  As  Hugh 
thus  became  heir  to  the  Douglas  estates,  a  slight  sketch  of  their  fortunes 
iluring  the  ne.xt  few  years  may  here  Ix*  given. 

The  reverses  sustained  by  the  Scottish  arms  left  a  large  portion  of  the 

south  of  Scotland  at  the  mercy  of  the  English,  and  of  Edward  Baliol,  the 

nominal  king  of  Scotland.     Immediately  after  the  battle  of  Halidon  in  13.33, 

Baliol,  having  assumed  the  crown  of  Scotland,  made  over  to  the  English  king 

the  forests  of  Jedburgh,  Selkirk,  and  Ettrick,  with  the  counties  of  Roxburgh, 

Peebles,  Dumfries,  Linlitligow,  Edinburgh,  and  Haddington,  to  remain  for  e^■er 

a.s  appanages  of  the  English  crown.'-     In  these  districts  lay  most  of  the  lands 

which  Sir  James  Douglas  had  received  from  his  grateful  sovereign  in  recogni- 

'  Registrura  Glasguense,  vol.  i.  pp.  2.34,  233.  -  Rymer's  Fccdera,  vol.  ii.  pp.  SSS-SOU. 

VOL.  I.  L'  i; 

194  llUail  OF  DOUGLAS,  LOUD  OF  DOUGLAS. 

tioii  of  his  patriotism  and  vaLjui'.  Nor  did  Doiiglasdale  escape.  Lord  ClitVord, 
grandson  of  Sir  ri(jbert  Clift'ord  wlio  held  the  Doughis  lands  in  the  reign  of 
King  Edward  the  First,  having  received  and  sheltered  Baliol  when  chased 
from  Scotland  by  Sir  Archibald  1  )ouglas  and  others  in  the  winter  of  1332, 
oljtained  the  lands  in  grant  again  from  the  fugitive  nionarcli,  "if  God  should 
give  him  prosperous  times,  and  restore  lum  to  his  kingdom."^  There  is  no 
evidence,  however,  that  this  grant  was  ever  made  good  by  possession.  Four 
years  later,  when,  in  the  end  of  1336,  Edward  the  Third  of  England  lay  at 
FiOthwell  to  receive  the  inhabitants  of  the  western  counties  to  his  peace,  the 
Douglas  retainers  were  still  faithful  to  their  allegiance.  (In  this  account, 
Lord  Stafford,  in  passing  through  Douglasdale  with  reinforcements  for  the 
English  army,  laid  the  valley  waste,  and  carried  off  a  large  spoil.  Sir 
William  Douglas,  afterwards  known  as  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale,  was  lurkiuLr 
in  the  neighbourhood,  pursuing  the  mode  of  warfare  so  successfully  employed 
by  the  Good  Sir  James,  and  wrought  considerable  damage  to  the  English.'- 
The  destruction  of  their  homes,  however,  did  not  shake  the  loyalty  of  the 
Douglas  men,  and  they  only  escaped  another  similar  visitation  at  the  hands 
of  Sir  Anthony  Lucy  in  the  autumn  of  the  following  year  by  heavy  rains  and 
tloods,  which  compelled  him  to  desist  from  further  advance  after  a  most 
destructive  raid  made  by  him  throughout  the  district  of  Galloway." 

The  lands,  castle,  and  forest  of  Jedburgh,  with  the  forests  of  Ettrick  and 
Selkirk,  were  placed  in  the  hands  of  English  keepers,  while  the  lands  in 
neighbouring  counties  were  similarly  dealt  witli.^  Jkiittle,  in  Galloway,  was 
at  first  seized  by  Edward  himself,  but  afterwards  restored  to  Baliol  as  his 
ancestral  possession.^  The  castle,  to^vn,  and  forest  of  Jedburgh  were 
ultimately  bestowed  upon  Henry  Fercy  by  Edward  in  exchange  for  .Vnnan- 

'  Chronicon  de  Laneroost,  p.  271. 

-  Ibid.  pp.  287,  2SS.  *  Rymera  Foedera,  vol.  ii.  p.  SSO,  S0<». 

■^  Ihhl  pp.  201,  202.  •'  Ihid. 


dale  and  the  castle  of  Lochmabeii,  which  Percy  liad  received  in  grant  from 
Baliol.^  Gifts,  however,  were  not  equivalent  to  possession,  and  it  was  easier 
to  obtain  the  former  than  to  secure  the  latter.  Sir  "William  Douglas  and 
others,  says  Froissart,  secreted  themselves  for  seven  years  in  this  very  forest 
of  Jedburgh,  making  it,  as  well  in  winter  as  in  summer,  their  headquarters, 
whence  they  sallied  fortli  to  "  war  against  all  the  towns  and  fortresses 
wherein  King  Edward  had  placed  any  garrison,  in  which  many  perilous 
and  gallant  adventures  befell  them,  and  from  which  they  had  acquired  much 
honour  and  renown."-  The  possession  w^as  therefore  of  comparatively  little 
value  to  the  English,  as  the  patriotic  Scots  steadfastly  refused  to  recognise  a 
change  of  ownership. 

During  this  period  of  confusion  the  English  king  bestowed  various 
Scottish  benefices  on  his  favourites,  among  which  was  the  prebend  of  Old 
Eoxburgh,  with  the  canon's  stall  pertaining  to  it.  These,  in  1337,  were 
bestowed  on  Andrew  Ormiston.^  If  Hugh  Douglas  had  formerly  held  this 
rectory,  he  must  have  Iteen  dispossessed;  but  except  the  probability  that 
he  was  so  treated,  nothing  has  been  discovered  as  to  his  movements  up 
to  the  time  when,  by  the  death  ui  his  nephew,  he  succeeded  to  the 
Douglas  estates.  That  ho  did  so  succeed  is  proved  by  later  events,  fur 
after  the  return  of  King  David  the  Second  from  France  to  Scotland  in 
1341,  an  arrangement  seems  to  have  been  come  to  by  which  Hugh  Douglas 
served  himself  heir  to  his  brother  Sir  James,  who  had  died  last  infeft 
in  the  Douglas  lands, 

"While  thus  in  possession  of  the  Douglas  territory,  Hugh  Douglas  made 
several  grants  to  AVilliam  Douglas  of  Lothian,  evidently  as  a  reward  for 
his  vigour  in  defending  Douglasdale,  and  especially  Jedburgh  Forest,  from 
the  English.     The  first  of  these  grants  included  the  half  of  the  barony  of 

^  Rotuli  Scotiai,  vol.  i.  p.  2S0.  -  Froissart,  Johnes'  ed.,  vol.  i.  p.  77. 

^  Rotuli  Scotia-,  vol.  i.  p.  olG. 

196         nUGU  OF  DOUGLAS,  LOUD  OF  DOUGLAS. 

Westei'kirk,  with  the  exception  of  the  iiiauor  phice  and  demesue  lands  of  tlie 
same,  wliich  were  reserved  to  the  granter  and  liis  heirs.  Apparently  at 
the  same  time  Lord  Hugh  granted  to  Sir  "William  Douglas  the  barony  of 
Stabilgorton,  reserving  only  the  castle  and  the  cotlaw.  V>\  a  third  charter, 
Sir  William  Douglas  received  the  whole  lan<l  of  Polbothy  (now  Polmoody). 
Some  of  the  witnesses  to  this  charter  are  identical  with  the  witnesses  to  the 
two  former,  from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that  all  three  were  granted  about 
the  same  time,  and  before  the  IGth  of  February  1341-2.^ 

On  this  last-mentioned  date  Sir  William  Douglas  of  Lothian  received 
from  King  David  the  Second,  under  conditions  afterwards  narrated  in  the 
memoir  of  the  first  Earl,  a  charter  of  the  lordship  of  Liddesdale,  whence  he 
derived  the  title  "  Lord  of  Liddesdale,"  or  the  "  Knight  of  Liddesdale,"  by 
which  name  he  is  best  known  in  history,  and  which,  in  his  own  day, 
distinguished  him  from  other  members  of  the  illustrious  Douglas  family.-  It 
was  as  Lord  of  Liddesdale  that  Sir  William  Douglas  obtained  a  fourth  charter 
from  his  kinsman  and  chief,  Hugh,  Lord  of  Douglas,  of  certahi  lands  lying  in 
the  town  and  territory  of  Merton,  forfeited  by  Eichard  Knowte,  in  the 
superior's  hands.^  This  charter,  in  which  Hugh  assumes  the  baronial  title, 
must  have  been  granted  between  the  IGth  February  1341-1',  when  William 
Douglas  became  Lord  of  Liddesdale,  and  before  the  26th  of  INIay  1342, 
at  which  date  Hugh,  Lord  of  Douglas,  made  a  formal  resignation  of  the 
Douglas  possessions. 

Besides  these  minor  grants,  Hugh,  Lord  of  Douglas,  made  a  formal  rt-signa- 
tion  of  the  Douglas  estates  in  favour  of  certain  heirs  of  entail.  Li  canying  out 
this  latest  transaction  he  appeared  personally  before  King  David  the  Second, 
and  many  prelates  of  the  realm,  at  Aberdeen,  on  2Gth  Alay  1342,  and  then  and 
there,  as  brother  and  heir  of  the  late  Sir  James,  Lord  of  Douglas,  formally 

'  Registrum  Honoris  «le  Morton,  vol.  ii.  pp.  89-92. 
-  Ihkl.  pp.  47,  48.  ^  Ihhl.  pp.  92,  n.*?. 


resigned  the  lauds  of  Douglasdale,  CaruiicluK'l,  Forest  of  Selkirk,  Lauderdale, 
Retliocrule,  Eskdale,  Stabilgortou,  Buittle  in  Galloway,  lionianno,  and  the 
farm  of  Paitherglen,  all  as  held  of  the  Crown.  This  was  done  for  the  purpose 
of  entailing  them  to  the  next  heirs,  who  are  named  in  the  charter  of  regrant 
by  the  same  king,  given  three  days  afterwards  at  Dundee,  first,  ^^'illiam 
of  Douglas,  son  and  heir  of  the  late  Archiljald  of  Douglas,  knight,  brother 
of  the  said  deceased  James,  and  his  lawful  heirs-male ;  failing  whom,  th.- 
succession  opened  by  a  special  royal  grant  to  Sir  AVilliam  Douglas  of 
Liddesdale,  and  his  lawful  heirs-male,  whose  services  to  the  Crown  and 
kingdom  tlie  king  acknowledged  as  being  numerous  and  beneficial;  and, 
failing  them,  to  .Vi-cliibald  Douglas,  son  of  the  said  deceased  James,  Lord  of 
Douglas,  and  his  heirs-male.  These  all  failing,  the  lands  were  to  revert  to 
the  true  and  nearest  lieirs  of  Lord  Hugh  by  right  of  succession.^ 

Hugh,  Lord  of  Douglas,  about  this  time  obtained  or  resumed  possession  of 
the  prebend  of  Old  I^oxburgh,  and  held  it  at  least  for  some  years.  It  had 
been  granted  by  King  Edward  the  Third,  in  1.337,  to  Andrew  of  Ormiston,- but 
the  expulsion  of  the  English  from  Roxburgh  Castle  and  its  neighbourhood,  in 
1341,  left  the  prebend  again  vacant.  If  alive  at  the  time  of  the  battle  of 
13urliam  in  1346,  Lord  Hugh  must  by  tliat  (;vent  have  been  dispossessed  in 
turn,  as  his  prebend  was  presented  by  King  Edward  the  Third,  in  or  before 
1347,  to  Eichard  Swynliop.  The  royal  mandate  instructs  William  de 
Kelleseye,  chancellor  and  chamberlain  of  Herwick-on-Tweed,  to  see  that 
peaceful  possession  of  '^  the  prebend  of  Old  lloxburgh,  which  Hui;h  de 
Douglas,  clerk,  lately  held  in  the  cathedral  church  of  ( rlasgow,  now  vacant 
and  in  our  gift,"  with  its  fruits  and  profits,  was  secured  to  Richard  Swynliop.- 
The  prebend  was  afterwards,  in    13-52,  assigned  by    the   same  authority  to 

'   Vol.  iii.  of  this  work.     The  original  char-        Archibald,  third  Earl  of  Douglas,  is  still  pre- 
ter  is  lost,  but  a  transumpt  ma.le  ia   1391,  at       served.  '^  Rotuli  Scoti*,  vol.  i.  p.  .-.16. 

the  instance  of  tlie  last-named  heir  of  entail,  *  IhhL  p.  709. 

108         HUGH  OF  DOUGLAS,  WED  OF  DOUGLAS. 

William  de  Emeldou,  when  its  previous  possession  by  Hugh  Lord  of  Douglas 
is  again  adverted  to  by  the  King  of  England,  who  adds  that  it  is  now  vacant 
and  in  his  gift  by  reason  of  the  temporalities  of  the  Bishop  of  Glasgow 
comiug  into  his  hands  through  the  war  with  Scotland.^ 

Hugh,  Lord  of  Douglas,  was  apparently  still  alive  in  13:17,  perhaps  later, 
but  little  further  has  been  ascertained  regarding  him.  Besides  the  charters 
referred  to,  he  left  an  enduring  memorial  of  his  short  enjoyment  of  the 
Douglas  estates  in  the  foundation  of  a  chapel  in  honour  of  St.  John  the 
Baptist,  at  Crookboat  of  Douglas,  the  junction  of  the  Douglas  with  the  Clyde. 
He  endowed  the  chapel  with  a  piece  of  land  of  the  value  of  two  merks  of  old 
extent,  between  Hoilgutter  on  the  east  and  West  Burn  on  the  west,  the 
other  boundaries  being  the  Douglas  river  and  the  highway,  with  })asturage 
for  four  horses  on  the  hill  of  Drumalbin,  and  certain  fees  which  were  wont  to 
be  paid  as  farms  from  Drumalbin.  The  fee  from  the  ferry  also  was  granted 
to  the  chaplain,  provision  being  made  for  keeping  the  boat  in  repair.  The 
neighbouring  lands  and  tenants  supplied  meal,  thus  :  Weirland,  half  a  boll ; 
the  castle,  a  boll ;  the  rector,  a  boll  and  a  stone  of  cheese ;  the  two  mill<, 
one  boll ;  the  I'rior  of  Lesmahagow,  according  to  custom,  a  boll  of  meal  and 
a  stone  of  cheese;  while  every  house  in  the  muirland  of  Douglas  was  to 
furnish  the  best  cheese,  which,  however,  could  be  commuted  for  two  pennies, 
if  the  chaplain  or  his  servant  refused  the  cheese.  If  any  one  unbecomingh' 
declined  to  pay  the  fee,  the  boatman,  as  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  was  to  seize 
anything  he  pleased,  until  he  was  fully  satisfied.  Such  was  the  endowment 
of  this  chaplainry,  as  ascertained  l>y  an  inquest  held  among  the  inhabitant.-. 
of  the  district  in  1550,  on  the  occasion  of  the  appointment  by  Archibald, 
sixth  Karl  of  Angus,  of  his  chaplain.  Sir  William  Bell,  \icar  of  Pettinain,  to 
the  vacant  benefice.- 

The  seal  used  by  Lord  Hugh  in  the  grants  of  lands  made  by  him  is  still 

^   Rotuli  Scotiae,  vol.  i.  p.  740.  -  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  pp.  •J42-244. 


attached  to  tlie  cliavtev  of  Westerkiik  among  the  Morton  nmnhncnts.  It  has 
been  described  in  the  Catalogue  of  Scottisli  Seals,  by  Mr.  Ileniy  Laing,  as 
representing  "  a  knight  on  horse1)ack,  1)earing  a  shield,  on  which  there  can 
Etill  be  seen  tlu^  l)ouglas  lieart;"  ]»ut  this  is  erroneous.  The  seal,  of  which 
a  facsimile  is  licre  given,  is  somewhat  broken,  but  really  represents  a  unicorn, 
bearing  on  its  back  a  shield,  the  upper  part  of  which  is  gone,  but  showing  a 
heart  in  base.  This  is  an  early  instance  of  tlie  unicorn  licing  adopted  in 
connection  with  heraldry.  The  background  of  the  seal  is  seme  of  mullets, 
arranged  in  groups  of  three.  It  is  surrounded  by  the  legend 
[s.  iiUGONi]s  dp:  dowgl.vs  canonic  •  • 
The  legend,  also,  is  erroneously  printed  by  Laing  as  "  S.  Hugonis  Dowglas 
can  no  mora." 

r.y  virtue  of  the  resignation  made  by  this  Hugh  Douglas,  and  the  regrant 
by  King  David  the  Second  following  thereon,  William  Douglas,  son  of  Sir 
Archibald  Douglas  the  Eegent,  succeeded  to  the  territorial  estates  and  title 
ot  the  Lord  of  Douglas.  But  before  proceeding  with  his  memoir,  the  services 
of  liis  father,  and  the  eminent  position  in  the  State  which  he  attained, 
demand  a  special  notice. 



BEATRICE  LINDSAY  (of  Cka^vfokd),  in«  Win;. 

rpHIS  Sir  Archibald  Douglas  was  the  youngest  brother  of  the  Good  Sir 
-*-  James,  and  the  father  of  the  first  Earl  of  Douglas.  The  earliest 
mention  of  him  is  in  charters  by  King  Robert  Bruce  of  the  lands  of 
Morebattle  in  lioxburghshire,  and  Kirkandrews  in  Dumfriesshire,  granted 
to  him  probably  after  the  year  1320,  as  part  of  the  lands  are  said  to  have  been 
forfeited  by  Sir  John  Soulis.^  Some  genealogists  make  Archibald  Douglas  the 
youngest  son  of  the  tirst  marriage  of  his  father,  William  Douglas  "le  Hardi." 
He  must,  however,  have  been  a  son  of  the  second  marriage  with  Eleanor  of 
Lovaine,  who  was  carried  off  from  her  friends  in  Midlothian.  Indeed,  it  i.> 
expressly  stated  by  Hume  of  Godscroft  that  Archibald  was  the  son  of  that 
lady,  and  though  he  gives  no  proof,  yet,  as  Hugh  Douglas  was  the  son  uf 
the  second  marriage,  and  succeeded  to  the  Douglas  estates  in  preference  to 
William,  the  son  of  Archibald,  the  latter  must  have  been  younger  than  Hu^ii. 
An  additional  reason  for  believing  that  Archibald  was  the  son  of  Eleanor  of 
Lovaine  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that  his  own  daughter's  name  was  Eleanor, 
a  name  formerly  unknown  in  the  Douglas  family,  and  no  doubt  inherited 
from  her  grandmother. 

Archibald  Douglas  v/ould   therefore  be  born  about  the  year   129G,  and 

'   Robertson's  Index,  pp.  11,  12,  '20. 


was  thus  an  infant  at   his  father's  death  in  1298.      Nothing  is  known  (^f 
his  education  or  early  years.     After  1320  lie  received  the  charters  already 
rt'fcrred  to,  and  in  1324  King  Eobert  the  IJruce  further  granted  to  him  the 
lands  of  ];attray,  Creichmond  or  Crimond,  Carnglass,  and  others  in  Buchan.i 
r.esides  these,  he  owned  Liddesdale,  the  baronies  of  Cavers,  Drundanriu-, 
Terregles,  and  Westcalder,-  and  a  third  part  of  the  lordship  of  Conveth,  in 
Aberdeenshire,  the  owners  of  the  other  two  thirds  being  the  Earl  of  ^foray 
and  Sir  Walter  Ogilvie.^^     He  is  called  Lord  of  Galloway  by  Godscroft,  an 
crnjr  which  has  been  repeated  by  a  modern  historian,  who  gives  a  reference 
to  1  lower.-*     That  writer,  however,  gives  no  ground  for  such  a  statement,  and 
indeed  expressly  disproves  it  by  naming,  as  Earl  of  Carrick  and  Lord  of 
Galloway,  Sir  Alexander  Bruce,^  a  natural  son  of  Edward  Lruce,  the  brother 
(.'f  King  liobert,  who  inherited  the  lordship  of  Galloway,  which  had   been 
-ranted  to  his  father  before  1308.      Sir  Alexander  Lruce  fell  at  Halidon  Hill, 
along  with  Archibald  Douglas,  and  the  latter  therefore  could  never  have 
possessed  the  lordship  of  Galloway.      That  territory  did  not  come  into  the 
iiands  of  the  Douglases  until  ISth  September  1309,  when  King  David  the 
Second  confeiTed  it  upon  Archibald  Douglas,  called  the  Grim,  who  has  been 
unfounded  by  Godscroft  with  his  uncle  of  the  same  name. 

The  public  career  of  Archibald  Douglas,  so  far  as  appears  in  the  history 
of  his  time,  was  short,  and  not  very  successful.  It  is  to  him  that  Bo\\er 
applies  an  epithet  not  flattering  to  his  talents  as  a  military  leader,  namely, 
Tyne-man,  or  Lose-man,  indicating  that  he  was  rather  rash  in  leading  on  his 
men   than  skilful  in  guiding  their  movements.^     Eut  it  is  doubtful  if  the- 

'  Charter  jirinted  at  length  in  Antiquities  Butliwell,  many  years  later. 

..f  AWTdccn  an.l  Banff,  Spalding  Club,  vol.  ii.  -  Charter  of  1354,  vol.  ui.  of  this  work, 

p.  ;5!t4.    The  lands  of  Crimoml  are  erroneously  ^  Registrum  Aberdonense,  vol.  i.  p.  58. 

described  as   Orniond   in    Douglass   Peerage,  ^  Tytler's  History  of  Scotland,  v.d.  i.  p.  3[)i». 

Wood's  edition.     Ormond  was  only  acquired  ^  Fordun,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  30S. 

by  the  Douglas  family  through  the  heiress  of  «  Ibid.  p.  310. 
VOL.  I. 


epithet  applies  to  this  Archibald.  It  is  frequently,  and  perhaps  with  more 
reason,  applied  to  Archibald  the  fourth  Earl.  This  Archibald,  however, 
displayed  a  rashness  or  impetuosity  unfitting  him  for  high  commands,  which 
may  be  one  reason  why  he  is  never  named  by  Scottish- historians  as  con- 
ducting any  independent  exploit  during  his  brother's  lifetime,  though  an 
English  writer  records  that  while  Sir  James  Douglas  and  Randolph  executed 
their  brilKant  foray  into  England  in  1327,  Archibald  Douglas,  with  a  band  of 
foragers,  made  a  raid  on  the  bishopric  of  Northumberland,  and  took  great 
booty,  defeating  at  the  same  time  a  company  of  Englishmen  whom  ho 
encountered  near  Darlington.^  But  in  the  troublous  times  which  followed 
immediately  on  the  death  of  King  Eobert  the  Bruce,  Archibald  Douglas 
was  made  liegent,  yet  not  so  much  from  his  own  merits,  as  because  of 
special  circumstances. 

After  Bruce's  death  the  government  of  the  kingdom  of  Scotland,  and  the 
charge  of  the  young  king,  had  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  Piaudolph,  Earl 
of  Moray,  as  Begent,  but  within  a  year  after  the  coronation  of  King  David 
the  Second,  he  died  suddenly  at  Musselburgh,  on  19th  July  1332.  Sir 
James  Douglas,  who  had  left  Scotland  for  the  Holy  Land,  had  already  met 
his  death  in  battle  with  the  Moors  in  Spain.  There  was  now  no  Scottish 
noble  influential  enough  to  overawe  those  barons,  the  Comyns  and  others 
of  the  English  faction,  who  complained  that  they  had  been  unjustly 
deprived  of  their  estates  in  Scotland,  and  who  therefore  supported  Edward 
Baliol  in  his  designs  upon  tliat  country.-  The  Estates,  however,  elected 
as  Piegent,  Donald,  Earl  of  ]\Iar,  and  he  took  connnand  of  the  army  which 
had  been  gathered  to  oppose  Edward  Baliol.  The  latter,  a  few  weeks 
after  the  death  of  Randolph,  appeared  with  a  fleet  in  the  Firth  of  Forth,  and 
landing  at  Kinghorn,  marched  to  meet  the  forces  of  the  Earl  of  ]\Iar,  which 
were  encamped  on  Dupplin  'Moot,  near  Perth.     As  Edward  Baliol  had  but  a 

1  Scalacronica,  p.  l.")4.  *  Fordun,  a  Goodal],  vol.  ii.  p.  303. 


small  force  compared  with  that  arrayed  against  him,  his  apparent  rashness 
can  only  be  explained  by  the  statement  of  Bower,  that  lie  had  made  a  vow 
to  attack  Perth,  and  tlien  be  crowned  at  Scone  ;  and  that  lie  expected 
assistance  would  be  given  to  him  by  certain  magnates  of  the  kingdom.'' 
In  this  last  particuhir  he  w"as  not  mistaken,  for  partly  owing  to  treachery 
and  partly  to  carelessness  on  the  part  of  the  ricgent,  Baliol  surprised  the 
Scottish  army  early  in  the  morning,  and  gained  a  complete  victory.  In 
the  terrible  rout  and  slaughter  which  followed  the  attack,  the  Eegcnt 
himself  perished,  and  with  him  many  other  nobles  and  barons.  This  sad 
event  took  place  on  11th  August  1332. 

While  the  army  of  the  Eegent  ]\Iar  was  thus  defeated  at  Dupplin  Mour, 
another  large  body  of  Scots,  numbering  about  30,000,  mustered  from  the  south 
of  Scotland,  under  the  command  of  Patrick,  Earl  of  ^larch,  was  lying  not  far 
from  Perth.-  On  receiving  news  of  the  defeat,  the  Earl  moved  his  furces 
towards  Perth,  whither  Baliol's  army  had  gone  after  the  battle.  Tlie  Scottish 
historians  record  that  instead  of  at  once  besieging  the  town,  he  halted  his 
troops  within  sight  of  the  defenders,  which  caused  one  of  them.  Sir  Henry 
Beaumont,  an  English  knight,  to  exclaim  that  there  were  friends  in  the 
Scottish  army.3  After  a  short  delay  the  Earl  of  March  withdrew  his  forces 
and  raised  the  blockade,  though  a  determined  siege  might  have  put  an  end  to 
the  war  in  favour  of  the  Scots, 

In  narrating  these  events,  the  Scottish  historians  make  no  allusion  to 
the  position  of  Archibald  Douglas,  but  English  historians  state  that  he  was 
among  the  leaders  under  the  Earl  of  March.* 

An  explanation  of  the  raising  of  the  blockade  of  Perth  is  found  in  the 
proceedings  of  Sir  Eustace  Maxwell,  who  had  joined  the  party  of  Edward 

'   Fordun,  d  Coodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  .304.  2  jm^ 

^  Ibid.  p.  306  ;  Wyntown,  B.  viii.  c.  xxvi.  1.  240. 

*   Hemingbiirgli,  vol.  ii.  p.  30d  ;   Walsingham,  1574  edition,  p.  113. 


Baliol.  At  the  head  of  a  band  of  the  men  of  Galloway,  who  acknowledged 
Baliol  as  their  feudal  lord,  Sir  Eustace  made  an  attack  upon  the  lands  of 
the  southern  Scots,  who  formed  tlie  greater  part  of  the  force  under  the  Earl 
of  March,  in  order  to  compel  the  latter  to  raise  the  siege/  This  had  the 
intended  effect,  for  March  and  Archibald  Douglas,  with  Sir  Andrew  ]\Ioray 
and  John  liandolph,  now  Earl  of  ]\Ioray,  at  once  retired  from  Perth,  invaded 
Galloway,  burned  the  country,  and  carried  off  cattle  and  goods,  "  but  killed 
few  men  because  they  found  few  men."^ 

In  the  interval  caused  by  this  diversion,  Baliol  had  been  crowned  at  Scone 
on  27th  September  1332,  and  after  fortifying  Perth  and  placing  it  in 
charge  of  Duncan,  Earl  of  Eife,  he,  without  delay,  passed  southward  through 
Cunningham  to  Irvine,  where  he  received  homage  from  a  few  who  held  lands 
in  Ayrshire."  He  then  went  to  Galloway,  where  he  was  joined  by  some  of 
the  natives.  Erom  Galloway  he  passed  by  Crawford  Moor  towards  Eoxburgh, 
while  Archibald  Douglas  and  the  newly  appointed  llegent,  Sir  Andrew 
Moray,  hung  upon  his  rear  and  harassed  his  march.  Xear  Jedburgh  Baliol's 
party  was  waylaid  and  attacked  by  an  ambush  uuder  the  command  of 
Archibald  Douglas,  which,  however,  was  discovered  and  routed,  while  Baliol 
reached  Kelso  in  safety.  In  this  skirmish,  it  is  said,  Pobert  of  Lawder  the 
younger  was  taken,  with  others.^  Baliol,  on  reaching  lioxburgh,  quartered  his 
followers  in  the  town,  but  he  himself  for  greater  quiet  took  up  his  residence 
with  the  Abbot  of  Kelso.  Here,  according  to  all  the  English  historians,  he 
was  attacked  by  the  liegent,  who  was  taken  prisoner  ;  but  this  event  probably 
took  place  at  a  later  period  when  Baliol  was  again  at  lioxburgh.* 

Baliol,  after  a  short  sojourn  at  Boxburgh,  departed  thence  with  a 
small  force,  and  progressed  towards  Annan,  with   the  intention  of  a])iding 

'  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  "269.  ^  Scalacronica,  j>.  l(jl. 

*  ForJiin,  a  (loodall,  j»p.  .30'J,  310  ;    Wyn- 
-  Wyntown,  B.  viii.  c.  xxvi.  1.  .315.  town,  B.  viu.  c.  xxvi.  1.  394. 

DEFEAT  OF  BALIOL  AT  AXXAN,   1332.  20i 

there  until  Christmas.  This  intention,  lio-u-ever,  was  rudely  interrupted. 
Archibald  Douglas,  who  had  so  perseveringly  dogged  the  steps  of  the  new 
monarch,  now  lay  at  Moffat  in  company  with  John  Randolph,  Earl  of  :\Ioray, 
and  Sir  Simon  Fraser,  at  the  head  of  a  tliousand  picked  men,  "  wyclit  men 
and  hardy."  These  Scottish  leaders,  hearing  from  their  spies  of  Ijaliol's 
imprudent  march  from  the  fortress  of  Roxburgh  to  the  comparatively 
defenceless  town  of  Annan,  resolved  on  a  surprise,  which  was  boldly 
conceived  and  promptly  executed.  Marching  overnight,  the  Scots  arrived 
at  Annan  in  the  early  morning,  and  finding  the  hapless  Baliol  and  his 
followers  in  their  beds,  slew  about  a  hundred  of  them.  Baliol  liimself 
escaped,  but  in  such  haste  that  with  one  limb  clothed  and  the  otlier  naked 
he  threw  himself  on  a  bare-backed  steed,  and  thus  fled  to  Carlisle.  His 
flight  was  assisted  by  the  valiant  resistance  made  by  his  Ijrother,  Sir  Henry 
Baliol,  who,  with  a  stout  staff,  slew  many  of  the  attacking  party,  but  was 
at  last,  with  several  other  knights,  overpowered  and  slain.^ 

Some  English  historians  account  for  the  success  of  this  exploit  by  alleging 
that  Edward  I'.aliol  had,  on  the  faith  of  a  truce  negotiated  by  Archibald 
Douglas  and  the  Earl  of  :\rarch  to  last  till  2d  February  1333,  dismissed  most 
of  his  followers  to  their  own  homes,  and  was  then,  while  thus  unprepared, 
attacked  by  the  Scots.^  This  account,  however,  is  inconsistent  with  the  true 
order  of  events  narrated  by  the  English  writers  themselves,  and  as  the 
statement  regarding  a  truce  is  not  made  by  those  wlio  had  most  accurate 
means  of  information,  it  may  be  rejected  as  erroneous,  or  as  referring  to  a 
later  period,  after  Douglas  was  made  Ptegent.  It  is  said  to  have  been  made 
after  the  capture  of  Sir  Andrew  Moray  at  Ptoxburgh,  an  event  which  is 
antedated  by  all  the  English  historians.  The  chroniclers  of  Lanercost  and 
Sir  Thomas  Grey,  author  of  the    Scalacrunica,  say  nothing   of  any  truce. 

1  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  271  ;  Fonlun,  a  Goodall,  vul.  ii.  p.  .jOS. 

-  Chronicon  de  Hemingburgh,  ed.  1S49,  vol.  ii.  p.  300  ;  Walsingham.  od.  1574,  p.  114. 


Sir  Thomas  Grey,  however,  refers  to  negotiations  with  England,  and  liis 
statement  is  supported  by  the  fact  that,  on  2Gth  October  1332,  a  safe-conduct 
was  granted  by  King  Edward  the  Third  to  certain  ambassadors  from  the 
liegent  of  Scotland,  then  lately  appointed,  to  come  to  England  to  treat  of 
matters  affecting  the  kingdoms.^  Further,  on  14th  December  1332,  only  two 
days  before  the  battle  of  Annan,  the  same  monarch  appointed  two  commis- 
sioners to  treat  with  the  Eegent  and  magnates  of  Scotland,-  a  fact  which 
discredits  the  date  assigned  to  the  capture  of  Moray,  which  the  Scottish 
historians  assign  to  a  later  date.  They  state  that  the  party  Avho  attacked 
Baliol  at  Annan  were  detached  for  that  service  by  the  Piegent  himself,  and 
that  the  latter  was  only  taken  in  March  or  April  of  the  following  year,  when 
Baliol  lay  at  Eoxburgh  awaiting  the  King  of  England.^ 

These  statements  go  far  to  disprove  the  charge  of  treachery  made  against 
Archibald  Douglas  and  his  associates,  while  the  success  of  the  surprise  at 
Annan  is  further  accounted  for  by  a  contemporary  chronicler  on  very  simple 
grounds.  Baliol  and  his  followers,  it  is  said,  were  found  asleep,  as  men  too 
secure  of  their  own  safety,  because  of  various  former  victories,*  a  statement 
which,  coming  from  an  English  writer  who  says  nothing  of  a  truce,  may  be 
accepted  as  expressing  the  real  facts. 

Edward  Baliol,  after  his  flight  from  Annan,  went  to  Carlisle,  where  he 
was  well  received  by  the  Governor,  Lord  Dacrc,^  and  was  lodged  in  the 
monastery  of  the  Franciscans.  On  the  9th  ]\Iarch  following,  he,  with  some 
English  nobles,  again  entered  Scotland  with  fire  and  sword.^  In  retaliation 
Archibald  Douglas,  a  fortnight  afterwards,  led  a  force  of  three  thousand  men 
into  Northumberland,  and  laid  wasLe  tlie  territory  of  Gilsland,  burning  antl 

'   Rymer's  Fcedera,  vul.  ii.  p.  847.  *  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  271. 

2  Ihkl.  p.  S49. 

,  .   ,    .         T.     ,  ^  H.  Knv-hton,  '2.302. 

-    \\  yntuwu,  L).  viii.  c.  xxvi.  1.  3j>5  ;  rorduu, 

a  GooJall,  vol.  ii.  pp.  308,  ."iO'J.  '  l^Jid.  ;  Hemiiij^burgh,  vol.  ii.  p.  oOG. 


ravaging  for  the  distance  of  over  thirty  miles.  He  returned  to  Scotland, 
unopposed,  bringing  with  him  much  booty  and  many  captives.^  A  recent 
writer,  having  reference  only  to  the  fact  that  Gilsland  belonged  to  Lord 
iJacre,  alleges  that  this  foray  was  made  because  of  Lord  Dacre's  hospitality 
to  Baliol,-  but  he  has  overlooked  the  fact  that  it  was  more  probably  in 
revenge  for  the  latter's  incursion  into  Scotland. 

King  Edward  the  Third  by  this  time  had  resolved  personally  to  lead 
another  army  into  Scotland,  and  began  the  campaign  by  laying  siege  to  the 
town  of  Berwick.  There  is  considerable  difliculty  in  fixing  the  true  sequence 
of  events  immediately  preceding  that  siege.  Accepting  the  chronology  of  the 
Scottish  historians  as  on  the  whole  the  more  probable,  Sir  Andrew  Moray  fell 
into  the  hands  of  his  captors  about  the  end  of  March  1333.  Edward  Ixiliol 
re-entered  Scotland  on  the  9th  of  that  month.  On  the  21st,  Archibald 
Douglas  entered  England,  and  on  the  same  day  King  Edward  the  Third 
declared  war  and  summoned  his  barons  to  meet  him  at  Newcastle  to  march 
against  the  Scots.^  The  English  king  came  to  Durham  on  the  8th  of  April 
1333,  and  there  received  in  person  the  submission  of  Sir  Andrew  Moray, 
who,  "Wyntown  and  Bower  agree  in  stating,  refused  to  yield  to  any  one, 
until  he  was  brought  into  the  presence  of  the  English  monarch.*  The 
liegent  was  confined  at  Durham,  which  adds  to  the  probability  that  he 
met  Edward  the  Third  at  that  place. 

Sir  Archibald  Douglas,  therefore,  was  appointed  Eegent  of  Scotland  about 
the  end  of  ^larch  or  beginning  of  April  1333,  The  chroniclers  of  Lanercost 
state  that  he  owed  the  high  office  conferred  upon  him  to  liis  share  in  the 
exploit  at  Annan.  It  is  narrated  that  after  tlie  defeat  of  Baliol,  and  his 
expulsion  from  the  kingdom,  the  Scots  assembled,  and  because  Sir  Archibald 

^  Hemingburgh,  vul.  ii.  p.  306.  ^  Fcedera,  vol.  ii.  p.  So.i. 

-  Tytler's  Plistory   of   Scotland,  tLinl  edi-  *  \Vyutown,  B.  viir.  c.  xxvii.  1,  10;  For- 

tiun,  vol.  i.  p.  39S.  dun,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  310. 


of  Douglas  had  been  tlic  principal  adviser  iu  bringing  about  and  following  up 
the  king's  defeat,  although  the  expulsion  should  be  ascribed  to  the  Earl  of 
Moray  as  liigher  in  rank  and  more  powerful,  they  made  Douglas  PiCgent  of 
Scotland.^  It  is  also  stated  that  before  doing  so,  they  treasonably  took  and 
imprisoned  the  Earl  of  Eife  because  he  was  faithful  to  Baliol.  But  the 
capture  of  Perth  by  the  patriotic  party  and  the  imprisonment  of  the  Earl  of 
Fife  took  place  about  the  Ttli  October  1332,  and  could  have  no  relation 
whatever  to  the  choice  of  a  Piegeut.  It  is  added  that  Sir  Archibald  Douglas 
released  the  Earl  of  Fife,  and  granted  to  him  certain  lands  beyond  the  Firth 
of  Fortli.-  There  is  no  other  evidence  of  tliis,  but  it  is  certain  that  the  Earl 
was  in  the  Scottish  army  with  the  licgent  at  the  battle  of  Halidon  Hill. 

The  circumstances  wliicli  led  to  that  battle,  so  disastrous  to  the  Scots,  may 
be  briefly  stated.  King  Edward  the  Third  of  England,  though  bound  by  the 
treaty  of  Northampton  iu  1328,  and  by  the  marriage  of  his  sister  Joanna  to 
King  David  the  Second,  to  preserve  peace  between  Scotland  and  England, 
took  advantage  of  the  death  of  King  Eobert  Bruce  to  disregard  the  conditions 
of  the  treaty.  This  he  did  in  obedience  to  the  promptings  uf  his  own  ambition, 
as  well  as  iu  accordance  with  the  feelings  of  his  people,  to  whom  the  treaty 
was  highly  distasteful.  At  first,  however,  the  English  king  committed  no  overt 
violation  of  the  treaty,  although,  by  the  countenance  he  showed  to  Baliol  in 
permitting  his  barons  to  assist  the  latter,  it  is  evident  he  hoped  to  force  the 
Scots  to  take  up  arms,  and  thus  to  make  them  appear  the  transgressors. 

The  patriotic  party  in  Scotland,  however,  though  defending  themselves 
against  lialiol,  and  driving  him  from  the  kingdom,  did  nothing  which  could 
be  construed  into  a  breach  of  the  truce  with  England.  It  cannot  be  doubted, 
therefore,  that  the  English  king  was  truly  the  first  aggressor,  when,  after  the 
parliament  held  at  York  in  the  beginning  of  1333,  he  allowed  some  of  the 
English  barons  there  assembled  openly  to  join  with  Baliol,  and  to  invade 

1  Chrouicon  ile  Lanercost,  pp.  271,  272.  -  Ihld. 

SIEGE  OF  BERWICK,   1333.  209 

Scotland  with  fire  and  sword,  on  9tli  March  1333.^  It  is  true  that  the  Scots, 
in  retaliation,  entered  Xorthumberland  on  the  :31st  of  the  same  month, 
but  Edward's  summons  to  his  barons  to  march  against  the  Scots  is  also 
dated  on  that  same  day,-  and  therefore  before  he  could  know  of  the  Scottish 
raid,  so  that  his  hostile  intentions  could  not  have  arisen  from  this  act  of 
retaliation  on  the  part  of  the  Scots. 

From  this  time  Edward's  preparations  for  war  advanced  rapidly.  His 
first  summons  to  his  barons  was  dated  at  Pontefract,  and  he  immediately 
began  a  progress  northward  towards  Xewcastle,  which  was  appointetl  as  a 
rendezvous  on  Trinity  Sunday  [30th  ]\Iay].  On  30th  March  the  king  issued 
a  further  summons,  appointing  the  time  of  meeting  as  a  month  "at  the 
latest"  after  Easter-day,  which  fell  in  that  year  on  4th  April.^  This  would 
make  the  date  of  assembling  about  the  first  of  May,  and  accordingly  Edward 
himself  reached  Xewcastle  on  the  2 2d  of  April,  and  advanced  in  person  to 
Berwick  on  the  15th  May  at  the  head  of  the  English  force.'*  Baliol,  liowever, 
had  already  begun  the  siege,  and  the  town  had  been  invested  since  the  23d 
of  April.^  On  20t]i  ]\Iay  a  rigorous  blockade  was  begun,  both  kings  being 
now  with  the  army.  The  citizens  were  reduced  to  great  straits,  and  agreed 
to  capitulate  if  not  relieved  by  a  Scottish  army  by  a  certain  date.  Before 
the  time  expired,  a  large  force  headed  by  Sir  Archibald  Douglas,  then 
Eegent  of  Scotland,  crossed  the  Tweed  at  Yare  ford,  and  a  detachment  under 
Sir  William  Keith  and  others  succeeded  in  gaining  entrance  to  the  town 
of  Berwick.''' 

A  Scottish  historian  says,  that  when  the  conditions  of  the  agreement 
between  the  citizens  of  Berwick  and  the  besiegers  became  known,  the  Eegent, 

^  H.  Knyghton,  2562 ;  Chroiiicon  de  Laiier-  ^  Eotidi  Scotia',  vol.  i.  p.  238. 

cost,  p.  272. 

„  ^     ,  ,..„..  °  Hemingburgh,  vol.  ii.  p.  307. 

-  Foeaera,  vol.  u.  p.  Soo. 

2  Ih'td.  p.  857.  *  Scalacronica,  pp.  162,  163. 

VOL.  I.  2  I» 


being  warlike  and  of  a  high  courage,  immediately  gathered  tlie  whole  number 
of  the  Scots  who  favoured  King  David,  to  tlie  number  of  sixty  thousand 
warriors.^  This  army,  after  a  halt  of  a  day  and  a  night,  marched  southward, 
burning  and  destroying  the  country.  In  tlie  meantime  the  English  king 
demanded  the  surrender  of  Berwick,  the  term  of  treaty  having  expired.  This 
was  refused,  and  finally  a  new  condition  was  imposed,  that  the  town  should 
be  at  once  given  up  unless,  within  fifteen  days,  tlie  Scots  should  throw  two 
hundred  men  into  the  place,  or  should  gain  a  pitched  Ijattle  in  the  tield.- 
The  inhabitants  of  Berwick,  afraid  for  the  lives  of  their  children,  who  had 
been  given  as  hostages,  and  acting  under  the  impression  that  the  Scottish 
army  was  superior  to  the  English,  sent  messengers  to  the  Scottish  army 
imploring  the  IJegent  to  risk  a  battle;^  The  IiCgent  and  the  rest  of  the 
Scottish  leaders  unhappily  consented,  although  to  do  so  was  directly  in  face 
of  the  dying  instructions  of  Bruce,  never  to  risk  a  battle  when  they  could 
protract  a  war  and  lay  waste  the  country.*  Had  such  policy  been  followed 
on  this  occasion,  the  result,  owing  to  elements  of  disintegration  at  work  in  the 
English  army,  might  have  been  far  otherwise  than  it  was.  It  is  probable 
that  the  English  king,  finding  his  army  diminished  by  desertions,  would 
have  been  compelled  to  raise  the  siege  of  Berwick,  or  to  fight  the  Scots  with 
a  much  inferior  force.  Desertions  from  his  army  were  already  taking  place, 
and  dissensions  had  arisen  in  London  during  his  absence,  while  the  men  of 
the  northern  shires  had  objected  to  join  his  army.-'' 

Yielding,  however,  to  the  representations  of  Sir  William  Keith,  Sir 
Archibald  Douglas  led  back  his  forces  towards  Berwick,  crossed  the  Tweed, 
and  encamped  at  Duns  Park  on  the  evening  of  the  18th  July  1333.*^     The 

'  Fordun,  a.  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  310.  ^  Verses    called    "Brace's  Testaiuent  "  in 

.,  ,-,     ,  .  ,  ,„  Fordun,  ;i  Hearne,  vol.  iv.  p.  1002. 

^  bcalacronica,  p.  163. 

^  Rotuli  Scotiae,  pp.  234,  235,  244. 

^  Ibid. ;  Fordun,  ii  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  310.  "  Fordun,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  310. 

DEATH  AT  HA  LIDO  X  HILL,  1333.  21 

English  forces  were  drawn  up  on  the  slope  of  Halidou  Hill,  to  the  west  of 
Berwick,  and  in  full  view  of  that  town.  The  Scottish  leaders  arranged  their 
troops  on  a  rising  ground  facing  the  English  position,  from  which  they  were 
separated  by  a  marsh.  In  addition  to  this  the  Scots  had  a  considerable 
descent  and  ascent  to  overcome  ere  they  could  meet  their  enemies  at  close 
quarters.  The  divisions  of  the  Scottish  army  were  four  in  number,  the  first 
under  the  connnand  of  the  Earl  of  Moray,  the  second  under  the  Steward  of 
Scotland,  the  third  led  by  the  liegent  in  person,  and  the  fourth  commanded 
by  Hugh,  Earl  of  lioss.  The  position  occupied  by  the  English  was  unassail- 
able by  cavalry,  and  the  Scottish  nobles  and  knights  therefore  fought  on 

Notwithstanding  the  great  disadvantages  offered  to  an  attacking  force  by 
the  marsh  and  other  inequalities  of  the  ground,  the  Scots  rashly  determined 
to  reach  their  adversaries.  To  do  this  it  was  necessary  to  cross  the  morass, 
which  could  only  be  done  slowly,  and  under  exposure  to  the  arrows  of  the 
English  archers.  These  fell  thickly  and  with  deadly  effect  upon  the  advancing 
Scots,  yet  they  did  not  waver.  The  fourth  division,  under  the  Earl  of  lioss, 
made  a  bold  rush  upon  the  wing  of  the  English  army  commanded  by  Baliol, 
but  was  repulsed  with  loss.  The  main  body  of  the  Scots,  weakened  by  their 
passage  through  the  marsh,  and  breathless  because  of  the  ascent,  still  advanced 
with  impetuosity,  but  were  compelled  to  give  way  after  great  slaughter.^  In 
illustration  of  the  obstinate  courage  of  the  Scots,  and  also  of  the  great  carnage, 
an  incident  narrated  by  an  English  contemporaiy  writer  may  be  quoted. 
Among  those  taken  prisoner  was  one  who  had  that  day  been  dubbed  a 
knight,  and  he  said  that  of  two  hundred  and  three  knights  newly  made  by 
the  Scots  before  the  battle,  none  had  escaped  death  save  himself  and  four 
others.-  Seven  Earls  of  Scotland,  it  is  said,  fell  in  this  disastrous  battle,  and 
the  Eegent,  Sir  Archibald  Douglas,  as  well  as  liis  young  nephew  and  chief, 

^  Fordun,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  311.  ^  Chronicoa  de  Lanercost,  p.  274. 


William  of  Douglas,  were  fatally  wouuded  aud  captive.  The  same  chronicler 
blames  the  Ilegent  as  the  principal  agent  in  leading  the  Scots  army  to  such  a 
fate,-^  and  all  the  historians,  both  Scotcli  and  English,  who  record  the  battle, 
join  in  reprehending  the  pride  and  obstinacy  of  the  Scots  in  attempting  to 
attack  their  adversaries  in  the  face  of  so  many  and  great  disadvantages. 

Sir  Archibald  Douglas  having  been  raised  to  the  Eegency,  must  have 
been  considered  the  fittest  man  for  that  important  post.  But  in  this  case 
his  natural  impetuosity  led  him  to  yield  only  too  readily  to  the  repre- 
sentations made  to  him  in  the  name  of  the  citizens  of  Berwick,  and  to 
underrate  his  opponents,  and  the  strength  of  their  position. 

The  defeat  at  Halidon  was  a  terrible  blow  to  Scotland.  Berwick  fell 
immediately  into  the  hands  of  the  English  king,  and  Baliol  overran  the 
whole  kingdom  with  an  army  which  found  nothing  to  oppose  it.  The 
patriotic  party,  however,  were  not  subdued.  Eollowing  out  their  traditional 
tactics,  they  simply  retired  to  the  less  accessible  parts  of  the  kingdom,  or  to 
the  few  castles  vrhich  still  held  out  for  King  David.  From  these  they  issued 
at  the  first  opportunities  afforded,  gained  battles  on  every  hand,  and  a  year 
or  two  after  his  victory  at  Halidon,  Baliol  was  again  a  fugitive.  The  war 
went  on  with  varying  success  until  1337,  when,  on  engaging  in  war  with 
France,  the  kin"  of  England  was  oljliued  to  draw  otf  his  attention  from 
Scotland.  The  evil  results  of  the  defeat  at  Halidon  were  therefore  not  so 
lasting  as  might  have  been  feared,  though  for  a  time  the  prosperity  <if 
Scotland  was  wholly  retarded. 

Sir  Archibald  Douglas  is  said  by  the  family  historian,  Godscroft,  to  have 
maiTied  Dornagilla  Comyn,  daughter  of  John  Comyn  who  was  slain  by  Bruce 
at  Dumfries,  and  it  is  alleged  that  through  her  Douglas  became  Lord  of 
Galloway.  Sir  Archibald  Douglas  never  held  the  lordship  of  Galloway,  and 
his  wife  was  not  Dornagilla  Comyn,  who  indeed  seems  to  be  a  personage 

^  Chronicon  de  Lanercost,  p.  274. 



wholly  mythical.  Sir  Archibald  Douglas  inarricHl  BeaUico  Lindsay,  daughter 
of  Sir  Alexander  Lindsay  of  Crawford,^  who  survived  her  husband.  During 
the  troublous  times  which  followed  the  battle  of  llalidon,  the  widow  of 
the  Regent,  with  several  other  ladies,  took  refuge  in  the  fortress  of  Cumber- 
nauld. ]n  the  summer  of  1335,  King  Edward  the  Third  and  Baliol 
entered  Scotland  with  a  large  army.  They  advanced  to  Perth  without 
meeting  an  enemy,  but  one  historian  records  that  on  their  way  north,  on  the 
Sunday  after  St.  ]\Iagdalen's  Day  (23d  July),  John  of  Warrenne  and  Iniliol 
laid  siege  to  Cumbernauld.  The  castle  was  too  strong  to  be  taken,  and  the 
siege  might  have  been  abandoned  but  for  an  unfortunate  fire  within  the 
castle,  which  compelled  the  defenders  to  surrender  themselves  with  tlieir 
goods.  Among  those  who  thus  became  prisoners  were  the  w"idow  of  Sir 
Archibald  Douglas,  Sir  David  Marischal  and  his  wife,  and  the  wife  of  Sir 
Philip  ]\Iowbray.-  The  fate  of  the  captives  is  not  recorded,  but  Beatrice 
Lindsay  afterwards  married  Sir  Pobert  Erskine  of  Erskine,  and  became  the 
ancestress  of  the  Erskines,  Earls  of  INIar.^ 

Sir  Archibald  Douglas  and  Beatrice  Lindsay  had  three  cluldren,  two  sons 
and  a  daughter  : — 

L  John  of  Douglas,  of  whom  the  little  that  is  known  may  be  summed  up 
in  the  words  of  AVyntown,  who  says  that  William,  afterwards  Earl 
of  Douglas,  had  an  elder  brother  John,  who  died  beyond  the  sea.' 
John  Douglas,  with  his  mother,  ])eatrice,  had  a  charter,  dated 
between  L335  and  1338,  from  Duncan,  Earl  of  Eife,  of  the  lands  of 
West  Calder,  to  Dame  Beatrice  of  Douglas  in  liferent,  and  to  John, 
her  son  and  heir,  in  fee.^     Wvntown's  statement  that  this  John 

'  Wyntown,  B.  viii.  c.   xli ;  Lives  of  the  Charter-chest.      Mar   Peerage  Evidence,    p. 

Lindsays,  vol.  i.  p.  54.  515.              *  Wyntowu,  B.  viii.  c.  xli.  1.  37. 

-  Knyghtoa  aimd  Twysden,  2560.  ^  Original  ptius  Lord  Torphichen,  printed 

3  Old  Genealogy  of  Earls  of   Mar  in  Mar  in  .Spalding  Club  Miscellany,  vol.  v.  p.  24.3. 


died  beyond  sea  is  corrobonited  by  the  fact  that  among  thost- 
named  as  in  the  househohl  of  King  David  the  Second  during  his 
residence  at  Chateau  GaiUard  in  Normandy,  in  the  year  13-tO, 
is  a  John  of  Douglas,  and  he  must  have  been  a  person  of  some 
importance,  as  his  expenses  are  first  reckoned  among  those  of  the 
king's  household  and  then  deducted,  and  amount  to  the  sum  of 
£10  for  a  year,  or  less.^  Further,  when  in  1342  Hugh  of  Douglas, 
brother  of  the  Good  Sir  James,  resigned  tlie  Douglas  estates,  the 
king's  charter  of  regrant  makes  no  mention  of  John  of  Douglas,  but 
only  of  "William,  who,  according  to  Wyntown,  was  the  younger 
brother.  It  is  therefore  probable  that  John  of  Douglas  died  in 
France  before  1342,  and  unmarried. 

2.  William  of  Douglas,  the  second  born,  but  the  only  surviving  son  of 

Sir  Archibald  Douglas.  In  terms  of  the  resignation  of  his  uncle, 
Hugh,  Lord  of  Douglas,  in  1342,  "William  Douglas  succeeded  to 
the  lordship  of  Douglas.  He  was  by  King  David  the  Second 
created  Earl  of  Douglas  on  26th  January  1358.  Of  him  a  memoir 

3.  Eleanor.     Little  is  known  of  this  lady  save  that  she  was  five  times 

married.  Her  first  husband,  to  whom  she  must  have  been  married 
very  young,  was  Sir  iVlexander  Bruce,  a  son  of  Edward  Bruce, 
brother  of  King  Eobert,  who  inherited  his  father's  title  of  Earl  of 
Carrick.  He  was  killed  at  Halidon  on  19th  July  1333,- without 
issue.  His  Countess,  who  retained  the  title  of  Countess  of  Carrick 
during  life,  married,  secondly.  Sir  James  Sandilands  of  Sandilands, 
a  distinguished  vassal  of  her  brother  William,  Lord  of  Douglas. 
About  1349  the  Lord  of  Douglas  bestowed  upon  his  sister.  Lady 
Eleanor  of  Bruce,  and  James  Sandilands,  in  free  marriage,  the  lands 

1  Exchequer  Rolls,  vol.  i.  p.  4G6.  -  Fonlnn,  a  Goodall.  vol.  ii.  p.  .311. 


of  "West  Cakler.i  Of  this  marriage  there  was  issue,  and  tlie  present 
Lord  Torphichcn  i'^  now  the  representative,  and  still  holds  thesi; 
lands.  Sir  James  Sandilands  died  before  1358,  and  his  widow 
made  a  journey  into  England  to  the  shrine  of  Canterbury.-  The 
third  reputed  husband  of  Eleanor  was  Sir  William  Tours  of  Dairy. 
This  has  been  doubted,  but  in  1361  she  received  from  Exchequer  a 
sum  of  £2G,  13s.  4d,  as  comjiensation  for  growing  corn  destroyed  at 
Dairy .3  Since  she  thus  had  an  interest  in  the  lands,  the  marriage 
may  have  taken  place.  Previous  to  13G8  Eleanor,  Countess  of 
Carrick,  mamed,  fourthly,  Sir  Duncan  Wallace  of  Sundrum,  who 
received  various  charters  to  himself  and  his  wife.*  In  April  and 
December  1373  the  Countess  was  again  in  England,  and  in  April 
137-f  she  had  licence  to  import  corn  for  her  own  use.^  In  1376 
a  dispensation  was  issued  from  Piome  for  a  marriage  between 
Eleanor  Bruce,  Countess  of  Carrick,  and  her  fifth  husband.  Sir 
Patrick  Hepburn  of  Hailes.*^ 

1  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  p.  15  ;  Acts  of  the  102.    Of.  Registrum  Episcopatus  Glasguensis, 

Parliaments  of  Scotlaud,  vol,  xii.  p.  9.  vol.  i.  p.  279. 

-  Rotuli  Scotia?,  vol.  i.  p.  824.  »  Rotuli  Seotia>,  vol.  i.  pp.  957,  960,  90:5. 

•^  Exchequer  Rolls,  vol.  ii.  p.  105.  "  Andrew     Stuart's     Genealogy     of     the 

*  Registrum  Magni  Sigilli,   vol.   i.  pp.  75,  Stewarts,  p.  440. 






OIR  WILLIAM  DOUGLAS  was  the  younger  son  of  Sir  Archibald 
^^  Douglas,  the  Regent  of  Scotland.  As  already  stated  in  the  pre^■iou.s 
memoir,  his  elder  Lrother,  John,  died  unmarried  before  the  resignation  of  the 
Douglas  estates  by  their  uncle,  Hugh  Douglas.  Sir  William  was  therefore  the 
nearest  heir  to  these  estates,  and  on  29th  ^lay  1342,  King  David  the  Second, 
in  terms  of  that  resignation,  regranted  them  to  a  series  of  heirs,  the  first 
being  William  of  Douglas,  son  and  heir  of  the  deceased  Sir  Archibald  of 
Douglas,  brother  of  Sir  James,  Lord  of  DougLis.^ 

The  date  of  the  birth  of  William  of  Douglas  has  not  been  ascertained, 
but  in  1342  he  was  still  a  minor,  and  a  ward  of  his  godfather,  Sir  "\Mlliam 
Douglas,  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale."  It  is  stated  by  historians  that  he 
was  educated  in  France,  and  bred  to  arms  in  the  wars  of  that  country,  and 
there  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  his  earlier  years  were  spent  there.  He 
returned  to  Scotland  about  1348,"  probably  on  his  coming  of  age.     Scotland 

1  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work.  Godscroft  (p.  SO),  following  Boece,  states  that 

VViUiam   of  Douglas  fought    at   Durham   in 

2  Registrum    Honoris   de   Morton,  vol.   ii. 
pp.  46,  47. 

1346,  aud  was  made  Earl  before  the  battle. 
It  is  also  stated  that  he  was  made  prisoner 
^  Fordun,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  346  ;  Wyn-        but  was  quickly  rausomed.     This,   however, 
town,   B.    Mil.    c.    xli.    11.   34-30.      Hume  of       is  erroneous. 


was  tlien  in  a  critical  condition,  greatly  weakened  as  it  had  been  by  tlie 
recent  defeat  at  Durham.  King  David  the  Second  was  a  prisoner  in  the 
Tower,  and  many  of  tlie  nobles  and  barons  of  Scotland,  including  the  Knight 
of  Liddesdale  and  the  Earls  of  Fife  and  Sutherland,  had  been  taken  with  the 
king,  and  were  captives  in  England.  The  Steward  of  Scotland,  who,  with  the 
Earl  of  ]March  and  the  division  of  the  Scottish  army  under  their  command, 
had  made  good  his  retreat  from  the  field  of  battle,  was  acting  as  Regent  oi 
Scotland,  but  was  unal)le  to  make  head  against  the  invaders,  who  overran 
the  greater  part  of  the  south  of  Scotland. 

During  the  year  1347,  Edward  Baliol,  at  the  head  of  the  men  of  Gallo- 
way, with  the  aid  of  Henry  Percy  and  Ealph  Xeville  and  their  men,  laid 
waste  the  Lothians,  passed  to  Glasgow,  and  returned  to  England  through 
Cunningham  and  Xithsdale,  destroying  the  country  traversed  by  them.^  In 
that  or  the  following  year  Douglas  returned  to  Scotland.  His  first  act  was 
to  proceed  to  his  own  territory  of  Douglasdale,  whence  he  drove  out  the 
Englisli.  He  then  went  to  Edinburgh,  and  was  cordially  received  by  his 
maternal  uncle.  Sir  David  Lindsay  of  Crawford,  then  Governor  of  Edinburgh 
Castle.  After  remaining  there  for  a  time,  Douglas  bestirred  himself  for  the 
deliverance  of  his  country.  The  well-known  bravery  of  his  family  enabled 
him  to  gather,  of  burgesses  and  others,  what  Wyntown  describes  as  a  "gret 
cumpany,"  with  whom  he  marched  soutliward.  He  found  a  lurking-place 
in  Ettrick  or  Jedburgh  Forest,  where  he  and  his  men  were  welcomed  by  the 
country  people,  who  daily  came  in  to  him  to  renew  their  fidelity  to  their 
own  government.2  The  Castle  of  Eoxburgh,  which  dominated  the  Forest, 
was  at  this  time  held  for  King  Edward  by  Sir  John  Copland,  who  mustered 

1  Fcedera,     vol.     iii,    p.     104  ;    Fordiin,    a       Ettrick  Forest.     Wyntown  says  simply  that 
Goodall,  vol   ii.  p.  346.  he  went  to  "the  forest,"  suggesting  from  the 

'^  Fordun,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  346  ;  Wyn-       context  that  it  was  the  forest  of  Jedburgh, 
town,    B.    viii.    c.    xli.       Bower   says    that       in  which  Douglas  had  his  resort.     Lord  Hailes 
Douglas  drew   to  himself  all   [the   men  of]       [Annals,  vol.  ii.  p.  243]  follows  Bower. 
VOL.  I. 2  K 


a  considerable  force,  and  sallied  out  into  Teviotdale  against  JJoiiglas.  Uut 
the  Scots  in  the  district  joined  themselves  to  Douglas  and  put  Copland  and 
his  men  to  Higlit,  some  of  them  turning  their  backs  witliout  striking  a  blow.^ 
Of  this  success  Douglas  took  advantage  to  contirni  the  Scots  of- that  district 
in  their  allegiance. 

Owing  to  the  scantiness  of  Scottish  record  nothing  is  known  of  Douglas  for 
the  next  two  years.  His  tirst  recorded  appearance  in  political  life  is  in  1351, 
as  a  Commissioner  for  Scotland  in  company  with  the  Earl  of  March  and 
others  to  treat  with  the  envoys  of  England  for  the  liberation  of  King  David 
Bruce.2  The  meeting  was  at  Xewcastle-on-Tyne.  Various  negotiations  had 
already  been  carried  on  between  the  two  countries  with  the  same  object, 
but  without  practical  result.  On  this  occasion,  however,  it  was  arranged 
that  David  should  visit  his  kingdom  upon  parole,  seven  youths  from  the 
noblest  families  in  Scotland  being  accepted  as  hostages  in  his  place.  At  a 
later  date  William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  was  one  of  those  who  carried  through 
the  exchange  of  the  hostages  for  the  king,  and  accompanied  the  latter  to 

The  mention  of  the  name  of  the  Lord  of  Douglas  in  connection  with  these 
negotiations  has  led  the  usually  accurate  Lord  Ilailes  into  a  misstatement.^ 
His  Lordship  M'rites  :  "  Erom  an  instrument  preserved  in  Foidcra  Anglia:  it 
appears  that  the  Ejiglish  were  engaged  in  some  mysterious  negotiations  with 
the  King  of  Scots  and  Lord  Douglas."  After  narrating  the  terms  of  the 
document  in  question,  which  is  described  as  containing  a  secret  instruction,-^ 
Lord  Hailes  adds,  "  The  negotiations,  whatever  might  have  been  their 
tendency,  proved  unsuccessful,  and  the  King  of  Scots  was  remanded  to 
prison."     Lord  Hailes  is  right  in  saying  that  secret  negotiations  were  carried 

1  Wyntown,  ut  supra.  ^  Fcedera,  vol.  iii.  pp.  -2.30,  231. 

-  Fcedera,     vol.    iii.    p.    225,    28tli    June  *  Annals,  vol.  ii.  p.  240. 

1-^51.  i  Fcedera,  val.  iii.  p.  242. 


ou  for  liberating  the  Scotch  king,  and  that  they  proved  abortive,  but  he  is 
wrong  in  making  AVilliam,  Lord  of  Douglas,  a  party  to  them.  The  person 
named  in  the  document  referred  to  is  not  the  Lord  of  Douglas,  but  is 
distinctly  stated  to  be  "  Monsieur  William  Douglas,"  which  was  the  usual 
appellation  of  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale.^ 

Further  proof  that  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale  was  the  person  indicated 
in  the  secret  instructions  may  be  found  in  the  following  facts  : — David  the 
Second  was  liberated  in  September  1351,  and  the  order  for  his  reception 
again  as  a  prisoner  is  dated  28th  March  1352.  Between  these  two  dates 
the  Knight  of  Liddesdale  was  also  set  free  to  go  to  Scotland,  permission 
to  that  effect  being  given  on  20th  January  1352,  to  endure  till  the  following 
Easter.^  A  few  days  later  the  English  king  issued  letters  to  the  Anglicised 
Scots  ("  Scotis  Anglicatis  "),  informing  them  that  a  treaty  was  in  progress  f(jr 
the  liberation  of  King  David  Bruce,  and  that  Douglas  had  gone  to  Scotland 
to  assure  it.  They  were,  by  counsel  and  otherwise,  to  assist  William  Douglas 
in  fostering  the  treaty  on  behalf  of  the  Scots  king,  in  case  of  opposition  in 
Scotland,  and  to  continue  their  assistance  until  Easter,  when  the  Knight  of 
Liddesdale's  safe-conduct  expired. 

On  the  eve  of  the  King  of  Scots  again  surrendering  himself,  the  secret 
instructions  were  issued  to  several  English  commissioners,  to  the  effect  that 
if  the  treaty  then  in  progress  failed,  and  it  were  thought,  after  conference 
with  King  David  Bruce  and  Sir  William  Douglas,  that  the  work  ("  exploit ") 
might  be  otherwise  accomplished,  and  if  they  had  ascertained  the  favourable 
disposition  of  their  friends,  they  were  to  permit  the  King  of  Scots  to  remain 
in  the  north  of  England,  to  prolong  his  liberty,  or  otherwise,  as  they  saw 
necessary  for  the  furtherance  of  the  business.  It  is  quite  evident,  therefore, 
that  as  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale  was  permitted  his  liberty  at  the  same  time 

1  Fcedera,  voL  iii.  p.  246. 

-  Kotuli  Scotin?,  vol.  i.  \>.  74G.     Easter  ia  that  year  fell  on  Sth  April. 

220  II7ZZ/JJ/,   FU?ST  EARL  OF  DOf'CLAS  AND  J/AJi. 

with  the  King  of  Scots,  and  was  to  receive  assistance  from  the  English  party 
in  Scotland,  the  secret  instructions  refer  to  him,  and  the  result  of  his  efforts 
to  further  the  treaty,  and  not  to  the  Lord  of  Douglas,  who  from  first  to  last 
was  a  consistent  patriot.^ 

These  negotiations,  whatever  they  were,  came  to  nought,  and  both  the 
King  of  Scots  and  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale  returned  to  captivity  in  the 
Tower.  But  in  the  month  of  July  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale  entered  into  a 
solemn  agreement  with  the  King  of  England  to  be  his  servant,  and  to  permit 
the  P^nglish  to  pass  through  his  lands  at  all  times  without  hindrance,  in 
return  for  which  he  was  set  at  liberty,  with  a  grant  of  the  lands  of  Liddesdale 
and  Hermitage  Castle,  etc.,  to  be  held  of  the  English  king."^  This  document, 
which  was  a  virtual  betrayal  of  all  the  south  of  Scotland  into  the  hands  of 
the  English  monarch,  probably  embodied  some  of  the  proposals  contained  in 
the  secret  instructions  already  referred  to. 

William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  appears  to  have  visited  England  on  some 
errand  in  the  early  part  of  the  year  1353,  when  he  had  a  safe-conduct  from 
King  Edward  the  Third.^  In  the  summer  of  the  same  year  he  resumed 
hostilities  with  the  view  of  reducing  the  Anglicised  Scots  to  their  proper 
allegiance.  Gathering  a  large  force,  he  made  a  descent  upon  Cialloway,  the 
country  of  Edward  Baliol.  Eor  some  time  Baliol  had  been  residing  within 
his  own  territory,  but  in  the  previous  year  he  was  summoned  to  England, 
the  English  monarch  taking  the  Galwegians  and  others  under  his  own 
protection  during  their  lord's  absence.'*  Douglas,  however,  overawed  the 
Galloway  chiefs,  and  so  successfully  treated  with  them  that  they  took  the 

^  A  recent  liistorian  [Tytler,  vol.  ii.  pp.  20,  -  Foedera,  vol.  iii.  p.  246 

21]  has  repeated  Lord  Hailes's  error,  and  has 
enlarged  upon  the  subject,  thouirh  admitting 
that  the  Lord  of  Douglas  did  not  fall  in  with 
the  English  designs.  He  never  had  anything 
to  do  with  them.  *  Jbid.  pp.  753,  754 

•^  Rotuli  Scotis,  vol.  i.  p.  75G.  To  en- 
dure from  IGth  January  to  25th  March 

SUBJECTION  OF  THE  CHIEFS  OF  GALLOWAY,   13.53.         i'2l 

oath  of  fealty  to  the  Guardian  of  Scotland.  One  who  is  named  as  the 
principal  among  these  chiefs,  Duncan  or  Dougal  ^Macdowell,  took  the  oath  in 
the  church  of  Cumnock.^  He  had  fought  among  the  Scots  at  the  battli^  of 
Durham,  and  lu-en  taken  prisoner,  but  the  next  year  was  liberated  on  bail, 
and  swore  fealty  to  Edward  the  Third.  To  punish  him  for  his  new  change  of 
party  the  P^nglisli  king  issued  letters,  dated  in  August  1353,  ordering  the 
confiscation  of  his  goods  and  chattels.-  These  letters  fix  the  date  of  the 
invasion  of  Galloway. 

To  the  same  year,  1353,  may  with  probability  be  assigned  the  taking 
of  the  castles  of  Dalswynton  and  Carhiverock,  and  the  winning  back  the 
allegiance  of  Xithsdale  to  the  Scottish  crown,  achieved  by  Eoger  Kirkpatrick. 
Tlie  Earl  of  Carrick  also,  son  of  the  Steward,  afterwards  King  Ilobert  the 
Third,  entered  Annandale  with  a  considerable  force,  and  remained  there  till 
it  was  brought  into  subjection.  Wyntown  and  Bower  both  refer  these  events 
to  a  later  date,  the  latter  to  135G,  while  Fordun  takes  no  notice  of  them.-' 
An  PvUglish  chronicle,  on  the  other  Iiand,  states  that  while  King  David  was 
a  prisoner,  the  Lords  of  Scotland,  by  little  and  little,  won  ])ack  all  they  had 
lost  at  the  battle  of  Durham,  and  that  Lords  Percy  and  Xeville,  then  wardens 
on  the  English  ^Marches,  made  truce  witli  William  Lord  of  Douglas  when  he 
had  re-conr|uered  the  lands  that  the  English  had  takt-n  from  the  Scots.^  It 
is  certain  that  towards  the  end  of  1353  tlie  Scots  mustered  so  strongly  on  the 

1  Wyutown,  B.    viii.   c.   xlii.  11.    lGl-174;  of  Sootlaiul  by  the  Scots  to  the  years  before 

Fordiiii,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  3oG.  13o5.     This  statement  in  reference  to  Percy 

-  Rotuli  Scotia',  vol.  i.  p.  701.  and  Xeville,  taken  in  connection  witli   Doii- 

^  Fordun,    edition     1871;    Wyntown,     nt  glas's  association  with  the  Earl  of  March  in 

siiprn  ;  Fordun,  a  Goodall,  iit  Aupra.  1:J5.5,  and  a  truce  with  the  Englisli  warden 

^  English  version  of  Scalacronica.    Leland's  in  1356,  shows  that  the  Lord  of  Douc^las  was 

Collections,   vol.   i.   pp.   .504,   565.     Without  so  early  as   1.S53  a  warden   of  the  Scottish 

giving  a  precise  date,  the  author  of  Scalacronica  Marches,  though  he  is   not   named  as   such 

certainlyassi^'ns  the  winning  back  of  the  South  until  1.357. — [Fcpdera,  vol.  iii.  p.  354.] 


Borders  that  King  Edward  the  Third,  in  anticipation  uf  an  invasion  as  soon 
as  the  truce  between  the  two  countries  expired,  ordered  light  horsemen  and 
archers  to  be  kept  in  readiness  to  march  northward  if  required.^  It  was  even 
reported  that  Scottish  spies  were  searching  out  tlie  weak  phices  in  the  Malls 
of  Carlisle,  and  orders  were  issued  for  the  arrest  of  all  suspected  persons,  lest 
they  should  give  information  to  the  enemy.-  There  is,  therefore,  good  reason 
for  assigning  the  re-conquest  of  Galloway,  Nithsdale,  and  Annandale  to  this 
period  instead  of  a  later  date. 

But  the  occupation  of  these  territories  by  the  patriotic  party  in  Scotland 
had  an  important  bearing  on  the  fortunes  of  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale.  It 
rendered  his  plans  inoperative,  as  the  Anglicised  Scots  in  these  quarters  were 
the  chief  supports  on  whom  he  could  reckon  in  any  treasonable  scheme  lu- 
might  cherish.  He  himself  met  an  untimely  but  not  undeserved  fate.  In 
the  month  of  August  13o3,  little  more  than  a  year  after  his  release  from 
captivity,  he  was  Inniting  in  Ettrick  Eorest,  when  he  was  slain  by  his  godson, 
the  Lord  of  Douglas,  then  probably  returning  victorious  from  his  raid  on 
Galloway.  Fordun  states  that  he  was  killed  in  revenge  for  his  share  m  the 
deaths  of  Sir  Alexander  Bamsay  and  Sir  David  Berkley,  and  also  because  of 
other  enmities  stirred  up  between  the  two  Douglases,  by  their  ambition.-^ 
It  does  not  appear  that  the  Knight's  secret  negotiations  had  become  knov\-n 
to  the  Scottish  leaders,  as  the  eulogium  passed  u])on  him  by  a  contemporav} 
historian  ■*  forbids  the  supposition  that  his  treason  was  made  public.  The 
slaughter  was  committed,  it   is  said,  at  a  place  called  Galsewood,""  which 

1  Pvotuli  Sooti;v,  vol.  i.  p.  702.     SOtli  Octo-  brave  in  battle,  had  suflFered  for  his  country, 

ber  1353.  was  skilful  in  war,  and  faithful  to  his  promises  ' 

-  Fcedera,  vol.  iii.  p.  273.    4th  March  1354.  — words  inconsistent  with  knowledge  of  his 

^  Fordun,  edition  1871,  vol.  i.  p.  370.  treason. — Fordun,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  34S. 

*  Ibid.    John  of  Fordun  speaks  of  Sir  Wil-  ^  Now    called    Williamhope. — Sir    Walter 

liam  Douglas  as  "a    wise  and  very  prudent  Scott's    Tales    of     a    Grandfather,    Edition 

man."   Bower  says  of  SirWilliani  that  "he  wa^  1850,  p.  52. 


Godscroft  states  was  iu  Miiichmoor,  and  he  adds  that  a  cross  erected  on 
the  spot  was  called  until  his  own  time  William's  Cross. ^  The  body  of  the 
slain  Knight  was  carried  to  Lindean  Church,  near  Selkirk,  and  tinally 
deposited  in  ]\[elrose  Abbey,  while  at  a  later  date  the  Earl  of  Douglas 
granted  lands  to  the  Abbey  on  behalf  of  his  kinsman's  soul.- 

Another  and  more  romantic  reason  for  tlie  slaughter  by  William,  Lord  of 
Douglas,  of  his  kinsman  of  Liddesdale,  is  asserted  l)y  Hume  of  Godscroft, 
and  gravely  repeated  by  a  recent  historian,  namely,  jealousy  on  account  of 
undue  partiality  shown  by  the  "Countess  of  Douglas"  to  the  Knight  of 
Liddesdale.^  The  sole  basis  for  this  statement  of  Hume's  seems  to  be  the 
anonymous  Border  ballad,  part  of  which  he  quotes,  to  which  he  adds  the 
tradition  that  the  lady  wrote  to  her  lover  to  dissuade  him  from  that  hunting. 
Apart  from  the  fact  that  this  tradition  is  opposed  to  contemporary  history, 
which  states  that  Sir  William  was  wholly  unsuspicious  of  danger,  tlie  story 
told  by  Godscroft  is  otherwise  erroneous.  He  assumes  that  Douglas  was 
made  Earl  in  1346,  and  that  he  was  married  to  a  daughter  of  the  Earl  of 
March,  neither  of  which  assumptions  is  true.  Douglas  was  not  createil 
Earl  until  26th  January  1357-8,  and  there  was  therefore  no  "Countess  of 
Douglas  "  to  weep  for  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale.  Douglas's  only  wife  was 
Lady  Margaret  of  Mar,  who  survived  him.  The  exact  date  of  their  marriage 
has  not  been  ascertained,  but  it  is  certain  that  Douglas  had  no   Countess 

1  Godscroft's  MS.  History,  \>.  153.  It  is  for  the  Lord  of  Liddesdale, 
-  VoL  iii.  of  this  work,  ])p.  19,  20  ;  Lil^er  '^''^^  ^  ^^t  all  tlie.e  teares  doiine  fall." 
(le  Melros,  vol.  ii.  p.  463.  More  recent  historians  have  added  to  this 
"^  Hume's  History  of  Douglas  and  Angus,  romantic  tale  by  describing  William  of  Don- 
It.  77.  Tytler,  vol.  ii.  pp.  22,  23,  note.  The  glas  as  "the  faithless  husband  of  a  faitble^'s 
ballad,  quoted  as  evidence  for  the  storj^,  wife."  She  was  believed  to  have  had  a 
states  that  paramour  in  Sir  William  Douglas  of  Lit  Ides- 

"  The  Couutesse  of  Douglas,  out  of  her  boure  she       <^^^^-     "^'^  J^^^*^""  husband  slew  that  ••  flower 
came  o^    chivalry." — [Dr.     Josejth      Robertson     iti 

And  lou<lIy  there  that  she  did  call  ;  Chambers's  Encyclopaedia,  vol.  iii.  p.  64S.] 


of  the  family  of  March  in  13.33,  while  it  is  doubtful  if  at  that  date  he 
was  married  at  all.  Popular  tradition  is  therefore  at  fault  in  assign inu 
matrimonial  jealousy  as  a  motive  for  killiuL;  the  Knight  uf  Liddesdale. 
The  subject  of  his  marriage  will  be  afterwards  discussed. 

In  slaying  his  kinsman,  Douglas  may  have  been  stirred  up  to  revenge  the 
cruel  deaths  of  Sir  Alexander  Eamsay  and  Sir  David  Berkley.  It  is  said 
King  David  Bruce  never  forgave  the  murder  of  the  former.  But  John 
of  Fordun  further  assigns  as  the  cause  of  the  Knight's  death  "  enmities 
and  diverse  disputes  and  hatreds,  which  the  desire  of  power  raised  up 
betwixt  them,"  and  the  probability  is  that  the  true  cause  of  the  deed 
was  that  both  men  laid  claim  to  the  same  lands,  and  that  Douglas, 
meeting  his  rival  hunting  and  trespassing  on  his  territory,  challenged  him, 
and  the  Knight  was  killed  in  the  encounter.  That  both  Douglas  and 
his  kinsman  laid  claim  to  the  same  territory  has  never  hitherto  been 
clearly  understood  by  the  historians  who  have  referred  to  this  subject. 
As  the  fact  is  of  some  interest,  and  as  it  is  corroborated  by  the  family 
charters,  and  has  a  direct  bearing  on  Douglas's  personal  history,  the  circum- 
stances may  be  related. 

In  a  previous  memoir  reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  large 
grants  made  by  Hugh,  Lord  of  Douglas  and  Jedworth  Forest,  to  the  Knight 
of  Liddesdale,  of  the  lauds  of  Westerkirk,  Stablegorton,  and  Polbuthy.  These 
lands  undoubtedly  belonged  to  the  Douglas  territory,  but  Liddesdale  also  was 
claimed  and  held  as  an  appanage  by  that  powerful  family.  The  A'alley  of 
Liddel,  from  which  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale  took  his  distinctive  title,  was 
not  inherited  by  him,  but  was  granted  to  him  by  King  David  Bruce,  under 
somewhat  special  circumstances.  (Jn  14th  February  1342,  in  a  Parliament 
held  at  Aberdeen,  Eobert,  the  Steward  of  Scotland  (afterwards  King  Eobert 
the  Second),  appeared  before  the  King  and  Council,  requiring  sasijie  and 
possession  of  the  lands  of  Liddesdale  to  be  given  to  him.  in  terms  of  a 


Crown  grant  made  to  him  on  his  receiving  knighthood.^  This  application 
was  opposed  Ijy  Sir  William  Douglas,  who  declared  that  the  territory 
belonged  to  him  by  reason  of  ward  of  the  son  and  heir  of  Sir  Archibald 
Douglas,  and  he  showed  a  charter  of  infeftment  in  favour  of  Sir  Archibald. 
After  discussion,  the  King  and  Council  decided  that  the  charter  was  void, 
because  at  the  date  of  it  Sir  Archibald  Douglas  was  Guardian  of  the 
kingdom,  and  had  no  right  to  bestow  the  Crown  lands  on  any  one,  much  less 
on  himself.  The  king  then,  in  presence  of  his  Council,  delivered  to  the 
Steward  full  sasine  and  possession  of  the  lands  of  Liddesdale." 

The  Steward's  actual  ownership,  however,  was  very  short.  Two  days  after 
the  Guardian's  charter  was  declared  null,  the  king  bestowed  the  lands  of  the 
Valley  of  Liddel  on  Sir  William  Douglas,  who,  from  that  time,  was  publicly 
called  the  Lord  of  Liddesdale.^  One  peculiarity  of  this  grant  is,  that  it  makes 
no  mention  of  any  resignation  by  the  Steward,  nor  of  any  previous  possessor 
of  the  lands,  except  Sir  William  Soulis,  and  the  lands  are  to  be  held  as  he 
held  them.  One  is  almost  tempted  to  believe  that  in  this  case  the  Steward, 
wdio  heads  the  list  of  witnesses  to  the  new  charter,  was  made  the  tool  of  Sir 
William  Douglas,  who  thus  procured,  in  an  apparently  legal  manner,  the 
removal  of  an  impediment  in  the  way  of  annexing  his  ward's  lands.  A 
more  probable  explanation,  however,  of  the  Steward's  conduct  is  found  in  the 
fact  that  on  the  same  day  that  Sir  William  Douglas  received  Liddesdale,  he 
made  over  to  the  Steward  the  earldom  of  Athole,  of  which  he  had  been  owner 
since  the  previous  July."*    The  Knight  of  Liddesdale  held  his  new  possessions 

^  The  lands  of  the  Valley  of  Liddel   had  Steward    must  have   been   made   after   that 

belonged   to   Sir   "William   Soulis,  and   were  date. 

forfeited   by   him    in    1320,    when    he    was  ^  Eegistrum  Honoris  de    Morton,  voh   ii. 

executed  for  high  treason.     They  were  then  pp.  4G,  47. 

bestowed   on   Sir   Robert    Bruce,   a    natural  ^  Und.  pp.  47,  48. 

son  of  King   Robert  First.     He  was   killed  "*  Robertson's  Index,  p.  48,  No.  29  ;  Regis- 

at  Dupplin,  in    13.32,  and  the  grant  to  the  trum  Honoris  de  i\Iorton,  vol.  ii.  p.  40. 

VOL.  r.  2  F 


and  skilfully  defended  the  Scottish  Border,  until  the  battle  of  Durham  in 
1346,  when  he  was  taken  prisoner. 

After  that  date,  until  tlie  Knight's  final  liberation  in  July  1352,  he  visited 
Scotland  only  twice  on  parole  for  a  few  months.  He  then  treasonably  accepted 
from  the  English  king  these  very  lands  of  Liddesdale  and  castle  of  Hermit- 
age. Meanwhile  William,  the  young  Lord  of  Douglas,  returned  from  France, 
and  found  his  hereditary  possessions  overrun  by  the  English;  and  if,  as  is  pro- 
bable, he  felt  a  jealousy  on  discovering  that  considerable  portions  of  the  estates 
of  his  uncle,  the  Good  Sir  James,  had  been  conveyed  away  by  his  uncle  Hugh, 
he  would  be  yet  more  chagrined  at  finding  the  widespread  territory  of  Liddes- 
dale gifted  away  from  his  father's  inheritance.  If,  with  such  feelings  rank- 
ling in  his  mind,  Douglas  unexpectedly  met  his  kinsman,  between  two  such 
spirits  a  quarrel  would  speedily  arise,  wdiich  would  c^uickly  pass  from  words 
to  blows,  and  be  ended  only  by  the  death  of  one  of  the  combatants. 

This  view  is  materially  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  very  shortly  after 
the  death  of  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale,  the  lands  of  Liddesdale  were  con- 
ferred upon  William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  by  King  David  the  Second.  The 
grant  is  contained  in  what  is  virtually  a  new  charter  of  the  Douglas  estates.^ 
By  this  writ  King  David  the  Second  bestowed  on  William,  Lord  of  Douglas, 
the  whole  lands,  rents,  and  possessions  in  which  the  late  Sir  James,  Lord  of 
Douglas,  his  uncle,  and  Sir  Archibald  of  Douglas,  his  father,  died  possessed. 
Of  these  the  principal  were :  The  lands  of  Douglasdale,  Lauderdale,  the 
valley  of  Esk,  the  forests  of  Ettrick,  Selkirk,  Yarrow,  and  Tweed,  the  town, 
castle,  and  forest  of  Jedburgh,  the  barony  of  Buittle  in  Gallow\ay,  and  the 
lands  of  Polbuthy  in  Moffatdale,  with  a  few  minor  baronies,  all  lately  held 

^  Vol.  iii.  of  this  ■work.     This  charter,  so  the  register  from    which    it    was    extracted 

important  for  the  Douglas   hiatory,   is  only  seems  to  have  been  lost,  as  it  is  not  named 

known  by  two  transumpts,  cue  in  the  Douglas  in  Robertson's  Index. 
Charter-chest,  and  the  other  at  Cavers.    Even 


by  Sir  James,  the  grantee's  uncle ;  and  the  lands  of  the  A'alley  of  Liddel, 
with  the  castle,  the  barony  of  Kirkandrows  in  Dumfriesshire,  certain  lands 
in  Aberdeenshire,  the  baronies  of  Cavers,  Drumlanrig,  Terregles,  and  Wesl- 
calder,  and  some  other  lands  lately  held  by  the  grantee's  father,  Sir  Archi- 
bald. These  were  to  be  held  for  services  due  and  wont,  and  to  the  lands 
was  added  the  leadership  (ducatu)  of  the  men  of  the  sherifltloms  of  Eoxburgh, 
Selkirk,  and  Peebles,  and  of  the  Upper  Ward  of  Clyde. 

In  this  charter  it  is  implied  that  the  lands  of  Liddesdale  belonged  to  the 
grantee's  father.  Sir  Archibald  Douglas,  and  that  they  descended  to  the  son. 
Ko  notice  is  taken  of  the  nullity  of  title  decided  in  1342,  nor  is  reference 
made  to  the  possession  by  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale.  It  is  somewhat 
striking  that  the  decision  of  the  Council  was  thus  ignored,  which,  if  it  were 
valid,  necessitated  a  new  grant  of  the  lands  to  any  future  possessor.  The 
omission  suggests  that  Douglas  looked  upon  Liddesdale  as  his  inheritance, 
needing  no  new  charter  to  make  his  title  complete. 

The  charter  now  under  review  has  another  peculiarity,  and  one  of  some 
historical  interest.  It  is  dated  at  Edinburgh,  on  the  12th  day  of  February, 
in  the  twenty-fourth  year  of  the  king's  reign,  which,  according  to  the  ordintiry 
computation  from  the  date  of  his  accession,  would  be  February  1353.  But 
he  was  not  in  Scotland  in  that  year,  nor  was  he  in  his  Council  a  year  later  at 
Inverkeithing,  when  the  great  seal  was  affixed  to  certain  charters  in  his 
name.^  The  date  of  that  Council  is  1st  April  1354,  and  it  is  said  to  be  the 
twenty-fourth  year  of  King  David's  reign,  though  properly  the  twenty-fifth.- 
This  fact  seems  to  fix  the  date  of  this  charter,  the  witnesses  to  which  are 

^  Acts  of  the  Parliaments  of  Scotland,  vol.  ii.   are  stated   one  year  short    of   the  truth. 

xiL  Supp.  pp.  S-11.  These  charters  show  that  this  discrepancy  be- 

2  In  regard  to  certain  charters  produced  at  tweentheyearsof  his  reign  and  the  years  of  our 
this  Council,  a  recent  ■WTiter  says,  "It  is  now  Lord,  existed  also  some  time  bf/ort  his  return 
well  known  that  in  all  documents  a/ttr  his  from  captivity."— Mr.  Cosmo  Innes  in  Regis- 
return  from  England,  the  regnal  years  of  DaWd  trum  Cartarum  de  Kelso,  Preface, p.  xxvi,  note. 



precisely  similar,  as  12tli  February  1354,  a  tew  luonths  after  the  Knight  ot 
Liddesdale's  death.  "Were  it  possible  to  accept  the  date  as  it  appears,  in 
1353,  the  time  of  granting  it  would  coincide  with  the  visit  paid  ]>y  Douglas  to 
England,  already  noticed,  and  if  he  obtained  the  imprisoned  king's  consent 
to  such  a  charter,  his  quarrel  with  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale  would  be  clearly 
accounted  for.  But  it  is  more  probable  that  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale's 
death  preceded  the  charter,  though  the  haste  with  which  Douglas  completed 
his  title  to  his  kinsman's  territory  bespeaks  the  eagerness  of  his  desire  to 
possess  it.  Thus  the  words  of  Fordun,  representing  contemporary  opinion, 
are  justified  by  the  facts. 

From  this  period  William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  became  still  more  prominent 
in  Scottish  history  as  an  active  and  skilful  leader  of  hostilities  against  the 
English.  No  open  warfare,  however,  took  place  for  some  time,  and  during 
the  lull  negotiations  were  continued  for  the  liberation  of  King  David.  A 
treaty  was  at  last  all  but  completed,  by  which  the  King  of  Scots  was  to  be 
set  free,  a  sum  of  90,000  merks  sterling  being  paid  as  his  ransom,  while 
twenty  young  barons  were  to  become  hostages  in  England,  and  the  Lord 
of  Douglas  and  three  other  magnates  were  to  give  security  for  payment 
of  the  ransom.  But  ere  this  treaty  was  finally  ratified.  Sir  Eugene  de 
Garencieres  arrived  from  France  with  the  special  mission  of  preventing  its 
ratification,  as  it  was  deemed  prejudicial  to  France.  He  was  accompanied  by 
sixty  knights,  and  also  brought  with  him  a  nund)er  of  golden  arguments,^ 
which  speedily  wrought  conviction  among  the  Scots.^ 

The  French  emissary  landed  in  Scotland  about  Easter  1355,  and  it  was 
resolved  to  invade  England  as  soon  as  the  term  of  truce  expired.  Prepara- 
tions for  war,  however,  had  been  in  progress  on  the  part  of  the  English  from 

'  40,000    moutoivi    (/'<;»•  =  £24,000  modern       of  the  Agnua  Dei,  hence  the  name  of  inoulon 
coio,     Macpherson's  Xotes  to  Wyntown,  vol.       given  to  it  in  vulgar  speech. 
ii.  p.  512.     This  gold  coin  had  the  impression  -  Fordun,  edition  1S71,  vol.  i.  p.  371. 

/.■.v-cor.v7'i7M  wirii  the  Exaiim,  1.355, 

ti.e  vevy  besnmiug  of  tl,«  yea,-,,  as  they  were  always  afaid  of  the  pat.ioth. 
party  m  .Scotland  who  were  opposed  to  the  treaty.     Levies  were  frequently 
cal  ed  out  .,y  the  English  king,  and  the  English  were  the  first  a™!vssors 
making  an  inroad  on  the  territories  of  the  Earl  of  Jlareh.^    To  aveLe  this' 
U.e  Earl,  wnh  the  Lord  of  iJouglas  and  a  strong  foree,  accompanied^-  Sir 
Eugene   de   tiarencieres  and   the    French   men-at-arms,    n.arched    towards 
Aorhan..3    Wyntown   relates   that   Douglas    practised  a  stratagem   on    Sir 
Thomas  Grey,  then  warden  of  that  castle,  ,,y  sending  forward  Sir  Willian, 
Umsay  of  Dalwolsy  with  a  party  of  foragers  to  scour  the  country  round 
Nor  am.      .S,r  Thomas  Grey,  with  eighty  men-at-a„ns  (some  accotfnts  say 
htty),  .ssued  out  to  arrest  the  plunderers,  who  drove  their  prey  northward 
under  the  very  walls  of  the  castle.     After  a  short  resistance  Kamsay  and 
I..S  party  iied  tn  the  direction  of  Nisbet,  where  Douglas  had  established  an 
ambush,  and  brought  to  the  Scots  "good  news  of  the  advent  of  the  English  " 
Ihe  latter  were  greatly  astonished,  as  they  turned  the  shoulder  of  the  hill 
by  the  une-xpected  sight  of  the  well-known  banner  of  Douglas;  but  it  was' 
00  late  for  retreat,  and  "  taking  their  lives  in  their  hand.,,"  Sir  Thomas 
■rey  and  his  men  rushed  on  the  Scots.     In  the  fight  he  and  his  party  ,vere 
.lefcatcd,  and  Sir  Thomas,  his  son  whom  he  had  knighted  on  the  field  and 
<jthers,  were  made  captive.s.^ 

Sonie  time  afterwards  the  Scots,  under  the  Earls  of  March  and  An-us 
sczed  the  town  of  Berwick,  but  it  was  found  i„,possible  to  keep  the  plLe' 
winch  was  soon  besieged  by  the  English  monarch  himself  at  the  head  of  a 
large  army.  The  small  force  of  Scots  who  had  been  appointed  to  ren.ain  in 
Ber^k  surren.lered  ou  their  lives  being  spared,  and  abandoned  the  town  to 
the  Enghsh.     Tins  was  on  13th  .January  13.56.'     (In  the  2.5th  Kin^  Edward 

\   f"'"'"''  Scoti.v,  vol.  i.  ,,.  7;5_  ,,  j,.^ 
•  Fordim,  edition  1S71,  vol.  i.  p  .371 

'  Fordun,  edition  ISil,  vol.  i.  p.  370. 
■'  Walsingham,  Ypodigin,,  Xeustri:e,  edition 
1574,  p.  123. 


the  Third  received  from  the  unfortunate  Baliol  a  formal  resignation  of  all 
his  pretensions  to  the  Crown  of  Scotland,  and  once  more  deeming  the  country 
his  own,  he  prepared  to  overrun  it.  After  the  surrender  of  Berwick  the 
southern  counties  lay  very  much  at  his  mercy,  as  the  Scots  had  no  force 
whicli  with  any  hope  of  success  they  could  oppose  to  his  large  army.^ 

The  Scottish  leaders,  however,  remembered  the  advice  given  l)y  Jvini; 
Eobert  Bruce  to  his  captains,  and  as  they  could  not  meet  the  enemy  in  the 
field,  they  hoped  by  stratagem  to  defeat  his  purposes.  As  the  English  king 
resumed  his  march  from  lioxburgh,  he  was  met  by  the  Lord  of  Douglas,  who 
came  ostensibly  as  a  negotiator  from  the  Steward  of  Scotland.  An  English 
historian  states  that  the  anny  of  Edward  presented  a  splendid  appearance. 
Before  the  king,  who  commanded  in  person,  w^as  borne  prominently,  among 
other  banners  and  pennons,  the  royal  standard  of  Scotland.  It  is  also  said 
that  when  on  the  arrival  of  Douglas  the  army  halted  and  encamped,  it 
covered  an  extent  of  twenty  leagues.^  Douglas  succeeded  in  arranging  a 
truce  for  ten  days,  during  which  time  he  pretended  to  communicate  with  the 
Steward  of  Scotland  and  other  noltles,  and  amused  Edward  with  hopes  that 
his  pretensions  to  the  throne  would  be  recognised."  The  real  designs  of  the 
Scottish  leaders  were,  however,  only  to  gain  time,  and  Douglas's  mission  was 
so  completely  successful  that  when  the  English  army  resumed  its  march,  the 
whole  country  was  found  to  be  laid  bare  of  provision.  Cattle  had  been 
driven  off,  fodder  destroyed,  houses  emptied  of  goods  and  inhabitants,  the 
latter  having  fled  to  places  inaccessible  to  the  enemy,  from  which,  however, 
they  were  ready  at  all  times  to  harass  the  English,  and  cut  off  stragglers. 
The  result  was  that,  between  the  diplomacy  of  Douglas,  and  the  activity 

^  The  numbers  of  Edward's  army  have  been  -  Robert  of  Avesbury,  p.  23G,  quoted   hy 

variously  stated,   one  English   writer  giving  Tytler,   vol.    ii.  p.    31.     Allies  are  probaljly 

33,000  men  as  the  total,  while  the  Scottish  meant, 

historians  estimate  the  total  at  SO,OUU.  "'  Tytler  s  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  ii.  p.  ."I. 


with  which  the  Scots  had  removed  their  goods,  the  Englisli  king  found  liini- 
self  marching  through  a  comparative  desert.  In  addition  to  this,  while 
waiting  at  Haddington  for  his  fleet,  which  was  to  bring  food  to  the  soldiers,  a 
tempest  from  the  north  sank  a  number  of  tlie  ships,  and  scattered  the  rest. 
Edward  and  liis  army  were  thus  left  destitute,  and  compelled  to  retire.  In 
doing  so  they  burned  and  destroyed  abbeys,  churches,  and  towns,  and  com- 
mitted such  ravages  that  this  invasion  was  long  known  in  popular  tradition 
as  the  "  Burnt  Candlemas."^ 

The  retreat  of  the  English  was  made  in  great  disorder,  which  was 
increased  by  constant  attacks  from  the  Scots,  who  had  harassed  the  army 
all  along,  but  now  hung  upon  its  rear,  and  embarrassed  the  march  in 
every  way.  King  Edward  himself  nearly  fell  a  victim  to  one  of  these 
attacks,  his  portion  of  the  army  having  been  led  into  an  ambuscade,  laid  by 
Douglas,  near  Melrose,  and  many  of  the  English  soldiers  slain.- 

On  arriving  in  his  own  kiniidom,  and  realising  that  Scotland  was  further 
than  ever  from  being  subdued,  the  English  king  now  expressed  his  willing- 
ness to  treat  for  peace.  He  reached  London  about  the  loth  of  ]\Iarch  13.5G, 
and  ten  days  afterwards  appointed  commissioners  to  treat  with  the  Scots.^ 
The  Lord  of  Douglas,  to  whom  this  satisfactory  result  may,  in  a  great 
measure,  be  ascribed,  during  the  cessation  of  hostilities,  set  out,  it  is  said,  on 
pilgrimage,  but  to  what  place  does  not  appear.'*  In  the  month  of  April,  at  liox- 
burgh,  he  concluded  with  the  Earl  of  Northampton,  the  English  warden,  a 
truce  to  endure  for  six  months,  binding  himself  not  to  molest  the  English  so 
long  as  they  abstained  from  hostilities  against  his  lands,  or  those  of  the  Earl 
of  March,  his  felluw-warden.^     In  the  following  June  he  passed  into  England 

*  Forilun,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  354.  *  Scalacronica,  p.  1 75. 

-  Fordun,    edition    1871,    vol.  i.    p.    .374; 
Hailes'  Annals,  vol.  ii.  p.  261.  ■'  Foedera,    vol.    iii.   p.    327.      Dated    ISth 

•'  Rotiili  Scotia;,  vol.  i.  p.  791.  April,  to  endure  to  Michaelmas  1356. 


with  the  purpose  of  conferring  with  the  King  of  Scots,  and  also  of  treating 
with  the  English  Council  as  to  his  liberation.^  From  England  he  went  to 
France  and  offered  his  services  to  the  French  king,  who  was  mustering  forces 
against  the  Black  Prince,  then  at  Bordeaux.  He  was  received  with  great 
honour  by  King  John  of  France,  who  accepted  his  services,  and  conferred 
upon  him  the  belt  and  order  of  knighthood.  With  many  other  Scots,  who 
at  tliis  time  had  taken  service  in  France,  Douglas  was  present  at  the  battle 
of  Poitiers.  There  the  French,  chietly  owing  to  their  own  impetuosity  and 
lack  of  generalship,  were  defeated,  and  their  king  was  made  captive.  Many 
Scots  fell,  or  became  prisoners,  and  Sir  AVilliam  Douglas  would  probably 
have  shared  their  fate,  but  his  followers,  seeing  how  the  battle  would  go, 
dragged  their  lord  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fray,  greatly  against  his  will,  and 
took  him  a^\■ay  with  them.     He  shortly  afterwards  returned  to  Scotland.- 

The  negotiations  for  peace  had  progressed  but  slowly.  The  commission 
to  the  Scottish  ambassadors  was  only  granted  in  January  13-57,  and  the 
truce  was  not  completed  till  the  following  May.  The  battle  of  Poitiers, 
and  the  capture  of  the  French  King,  enabled  the  area  comprehended  in 
the  truce  to  be  made  more  extensive  than  usual — a  cessation  of  hostilities 
being  proclaimed  between  the  subjects  of  the  King  of  Scots  and  those  of  the 
English  King  in  England,  Ireland,  Gascony,  Brittany,  "Wales,  and  the  Isle  of 
Man.  Special  conditions  were  made  in  regard  to  ships  stranding  on  the  coast 
of  either  England  or  Scotland — the  shipwrecked  persons  were  to  be  cared  for, 
and  when  restored,  allowed  to  go  forth  free  with  their  goods  and  chattels. 
The  last  clause  of  the  treaty  provided,  quaintly  enough,  that  all  the  people, 

'  Eotuli  Scotire,  vol.  i.  p.  ~\)3.  Safe-con-  clxi.,  Lord  Berners'  translation)  says  that 
duct,  dated  3d  June  1.35(3,  to  endure  till  the  Sir  William  Douglas  "  fought  a  season  right 
15th  August  following.  valiantly,  but  whan  he  sawethe  dysconfyture 

he  departed  and  saued  hymselfe,   for  in  no 

2  Fordun,  edition  1871,  vol.  i.  p.  37G  ;  wyse  he  wolde  be  takenne  of  the  Englyssh- 
Scalacronica,   [>.    175;  Froissart    (vol.  i.   cap.        men,  he  had  rather  ben  there  slajue.'' 

CREATIOX  OF  EARL  OF  DOUGLAS,   1357-8.  233 

on  the  one  part  and  on  the  other,  should  abide  peaceably  in  the  possession  of 
their  rents  and  other  profits,  which  they  have  at  present,  during  the  tnicc 
To  enforce  this  last  regulation,  wardens  were  appointed  on  the  Marches  of 
England  and  Scotland  respectively.  The  Earl  of  March  was  associated  with 
the  Lord  of  Douglas  in  guarding  the  East  March,  wliile  John,  Lord  of  Kyle, 
afterwards  King  Eobert  the  Third,  was  keeper  of  the  Western  Border.' 
About  this  time,  or  a  little  later,  Douglas  seized  the  Castle  of  Hermitage  in 
Liddesdale,  which  had  been  in  the  possession  of  the  English.  No  particulars 
of  this  exploit  have  been  preserved,  but  it  formed  the  subject  of  arbitration 
at  a  later  date.- 

William,  Lord  of  Douglas,  was  present  at  that  important  Parliament  in 
September  1357,  which  appointed  the  Earls  of  March,  Angus,  and  Sutherland, 
with  others,  as  Commissioners  to  appear  at  Berwick,  and  treat  finally  with 
the  English  as  to  the  liberation  and  ransom  of  the  King  of  Scots,  and  a  truce 
between  the  two  nations.^  The  treaty  was  concluded  at  Berwick  on  3d 
October  1357,  and  in  accordance  with  its  conditions,  King  David  the  Second 
was  set  free  after  a  captivity  of  eleven  years ;  the  Scots  binding  themselves 
to  pay  a  ransom  of  100,000  merks  sterling,  by  yearly  payments  of  10,000 
merks.  Twenty  young  men  of  the  highest  rank  were  to  become  hostages, 
and,  for  furtlier  security,  three  out  of  six  great  lords,  of  whom  the  Lord  of 
Douglas  was  one,  were  to  place  themselves  in  tlie  hands  of  the  English.'* 

In  the  following  January,  Sir  William  Douglas  was  raised  to  the  rank  of 
Earl.     The  date  of  his  creation  may  be  fixed  as  the  2Gth  January  1357-b, 

*  FcBclera.  vol.  iii.  p.  354.  devastations  was   addressed    by   Douglas    to 

-  Rotuli  ScotuB,  vol.  i.  p.  S26.     The  Her-  King  Edward  iii.     [Original  in  Public  Record 

mitage  was  probably  seized  in  consequence  of  Office,  London.]     The  King's  reply  is  not  re- 

a  raid  by  Sir  Robert  TwyllyoU  and  a  large  corded,  but  the  seizure  of  the  Hermitage  was 

company  of  English  borderers,    who  on  7th  referred  to  arbitration  in  the  following  June. 
October   1.357,  ravaged  Eskdale,  carrying  off  ^  Acts    of    the    Parliaments    of    Scotland, 

a  large  number  of  cattle  and  much  household  vol.  i.  pp.  516,  517. 
stuff.     A    complaint    as    to  this    and    other  ^  Ibid.  vol.  i.  pp.  518-521. 

VOL.  I.  2  r; 



or  between  the  25th  aud  2  7th  days  ul'  that  month.  On  the  25th  he  appears 
as  a  witness  to  a  charter  by  King  David  the  Second  in  favour  of  Jolm  of 
Menteith  and  Marjory  Stirling,  liis  spouse,  and  is  described  as  William,  Lord 
of  Douglas,  knight;^  and  on  the  27th  January  he  bears  the  title  of  Earl  of 
Douglas  in  a  charter  granted  to  the  monks  of  Melrose.-  The  date  of  his 
creation  has  been  stated  to  be  -1th  February  1357-8,^  but  is  now  proved  to  be 
about  ten  days  earlier,  and  the  dignity  must  have  been  conferred  during  the 
sitting  of  the  Parliament  or  General  Council,  held  at  Edinbmgh  from  tlie 
20th  to  the  28th  of  January  135  7-8,'*  The  Earl's  new  dignity  is  not  acknow- 
ledged in  the  English  records  until  a  few  months  later.  Shortly  after  his 
creation  he  seems  to  have  travelled  into  England,  under  a  safe-conduct,  which 
was  to  endure  till  midsummer/  though  he  was  still  in  xScotland,at  Edinburgh 
and  Perth,  with  the  king  during  February  and  March.*^  Between  March  and 
May,  the  Earl  passed  into  England,  his  servants  also  going  and  coming  on  his 
business,  and  about  the  end  of  May  lie  was  again  on  his  wny  north.  lie  was 
again  in  England  about  October  1358,  returning  to  Scotland  in  December.'^ 
The  Earl's  journeys  into  England  were  frequent  between  January  1358  and 
the  year  1361,  among  his  companions  Ijeing  the  Steward  of  Scotland  and 
Patrick,  PZarl  of  ]\Iarch.  The  Countess  of  Douglas  also  passed  into  England 
more  than  once  between  1358  and  the  end  of  13G2,  though  her  visits  to  the 
south  were  ostensibly  of  a  religious  character,  to  the  shrine  of  Canterbury.^ 

The  Earl's  duties  as  a  hostage  and  surety  for  the  payment  of  Xing  David's 
ransom  were   probably  the  cause  of  his  journeys  to,  and  partial  residence 

^  The  Stirling3  of  Keir,  by  William  Fraser, 
1858,  p.  199. 

-  Acts  of  Parliaments,  vol.  i.  p.  522. 

^  Robertson's  Index,  p.  31,  No.  42. 

^  Acts  of  Parliaments,  vol.  i.  pp.  522,  523. 

*  Rotnli  Scotiit,  vol.  i.  p.  819.  Safe-con- 
duct dated  27th  January  1358. 

''  Cartulary    of    Xeubotle,    p.    29G ;    The 
Lennox,  by  William  Fraser,  vol.  ii.  p.  411. 

^  Rotuli  Scotiae,  voL  i.  pp.  821,  825,  831  : 
Charters  of  St.  Gile.s,  p.  6. 

^  Fcedera,  vol.  iii.  pp.   394,  409,  439,  554, 


in  England.  He  was  doubtless  also  engaged  in  the  negotiations  for  peace, 
which  were  at  this  time  constantly  going  on  betwixt  the  two  countries. 
He  was  present  in  a  council  at  Edinburgh  in  August  1358,  when  the  monks 
of  Melrose  received  a  charter  erecting  their  lands  into  a  regality,  and  also, 
what  was  of  considerable  importance  at  that  time,  obtained  a  remission  of 
custom  on  the  wool  sold  or  exported  by  them.'^  After  a  short  sojourn  in 
England,  he  was  in  attendance  on  the  King  of  Scots  at  Edinburgh  in  ]\Iarch 
1350.-  In  September  of  the  same  year,  he  was  on  a  visit  to  his  brother-in-law, 
Thomas,  Earl  of  Mar,  at  Kildrummy  Castle,^  and  two  mouths  later,  was 
with  the  king  at  Perth.'*  In  their  account  to  Exchequer  for  the  same 
year,  the  Sheriffs  of  Peebles  state  that  no  rent  had  been  received  from  the 
king's  meadow  (near  Peebles),  because,  as  they  allege,  the  Earl  of  Douglas 
had  dealt  with  these  lands,  tliough  without  any  known  title.  The  auditors 
of  Exchequer  decided  to  consult  tlie  king  on  the  subject.  He,  however, 
appears  to  have  been  satisfied,  as  about  the  same  time,  Douglas  received 
from  the  king  a  remission  of  £13,  and  also  of  the  custom  on  thirty  sacks 
of  wool,  amounting  to  £20.^ 

During  the  greater  part,  or  the  whole  of  the  following  year,  the  Earl 
remained  in  Scotland.  His  movements  are  traceable  by  the  charters  to  which 
he  was  a  witness,  but  these  have  no  special  political  or  historical  interest.  In 
the  end  of  1359  or  beginning  of  1360,  the  Earl  himself  granted  some 
important  charters  to  the  monks  of  Melrose.  These  grants  aftected  his 
lordship  of  Cavers,  and  the  advowson  of  the  church  of  that  parish.  The  first 
charter  related  to  the  lands  of  Pin^wood,  or  Piinirwoodfield,  a  name  not  now 
in  use,  but  which,  from  the  boundaries,  seem  to  have  included  the  modern 

^  Liber  de    Melros,  pp.  400-402;    Acts  of  ^  Antiquities  of  Aberdeen  and  BanflF,  voL  iv. 

Parliaments,  vol.  i.  p.  523.  p.  718. 

2  loth  March  1359.      The  Book  of  Carla-  *  Ibid.  p.  156. 

verock,  voL  ii.  p.  410.  ^  Exchequer  Rolls,  vol.  i.  pp.  5G7-5G9. 


farms  of  Northliouse,  Skelfhill,  and  riiesthaugh.  Tlie  lands  in  (question  had 
belonged  to  the  Abbey  of  Melrose  from  the  time  of  King  ]\Ialcolm  the  Fourth, 
when  Osulf,  son  of  Uchtred,  granted  the  territory  for  the  benefit  of  his  own 
soul,  and  those  of  King  David  the  First  and  Prince  Henry .^  The  gift  was 
confirmed  by  various  successive  kings,  ^Malcolm  the  Fourth,  William  the  Lion, 
and  Alexander  the  Second,  and  now  the  Earl  of  Douglas,  as  Lord  of  the 
barony  of  Cavers,  in  which  tlie  lands  lay,  regranteil  them  according  to  the 
boundaries  laid  down  in  Osulf  s  charter.  The  gram  was  so  ample  that  the 
Earl  and  his  heirs  were  to  exact  from  the  monks  nothing  at  all  for  ever,  save 
their  prayers.^  The  charter  contains  the  usual  warrandice,  but  for  some 
reason,  probably  the  English  encroachments  on  Teviotdale,  the  Earl  executed 
a  separate  and  special  warrant  in  favour  of  the  monks.  By  this  writ  he 
directed  his  bailie  in  that  neighbourhood,  Sir  William  of  Gledstanes,  to 
defend  and  protect  the  rights  of  the  abbot  and  convent  in  the  privileges  and 
easements  which  pertained  to  them  as  owners  of  the  lands  of  Ringwood.^ 
This  document  is  dated  24th  April  1360,  and  may  have  been  gi-anted  at  the 
personal  solicitation  of  the  abbot,  as  it  is  given  under  the  Earl's  seal  at  the 
Abbey  of  Melrose. 

To  the  lands  of  Ring  wood  the  Earl  added,  by  a  charter  which  is  not  dated, 
but  which  probably  was  granted  about  this  time,  the  neighbouring  lands  of 
Penangushope  and  Lower  Caldcleuch.  These  lands  lay  adjacent  to,  and  further 
south  than  the  lands  called  Ringwood,  and  formed,  it  is  believed,  the  most 
southerly  portion  of  the  territories  of  the  rich  Abbey  of  Melrose.  This  new 
grant  was  made  for  the  special  purpose  of  providing  masses  for  the  soul  of  Sir 
William  Douglas  of  Lothian,  the  "  Knight  of  Liddesdale,"  whose  death  at  the 
hands  of  the  Lord  of  Douglas  has  already  been  narrated.  The  Knight's  body 
was  buried  in  the  Abbey  of  ]Melrose,  in  front  of  the  altar  of  Saint  Bridget,-* 

^  Liber  de  Melroa,  vol  i.  pp.  9,  10.       -  Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  428.      ^  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  pp.  21,  22. 
*  Registrum  de  Neubotle,  pp.  100,  101  ;  Liber  de  Melros,  vol.  ii.  p.  463. 

(rRANT  OF  CAVERS  TO  MELROSE  ABBEY,    13G0.  237 

and  the  monks  of  ^Melrose,  and  their  successors  lor  ever,  were  to  provide  one 
of  their  number  regularly  to  celebrate  mass  before  that  altar  for  the  soul  oi 
the  Knight  of  Liddesdale  and  others. 

About  this  time  also  the  Earl  of  Douglas  granted  further  alms  to  the 
Abbey  of  Melrose,  by  l)esto\ving  upon  them,  for  the  benefit  of  his  own  soul 
and  the  souls  of  his  ancestors  and  successors,  the  whole  right  of  patronage 
and  advowson  of  the  church  of  Great  Cavers,  in  the  shire  of  Eoxburgh.  The 
Earl  in  tliis  grant  describes  himself  as  Lord  of  Liddesdale,  but  it  does  not 
appear  that  Cavers  was  a  part  of  that  territoiy.  In  a  duplicate  of  the 
charter  the  P^arl  designs  himself  lord  of  the  barony  of  Cavers,  and  the  gift 
was  ratified  by  his  brother-in-law,  Thomas,  Earl  of  ]\Iar,  who  had  an  interest 
in  the  barony.  It  was  duly  confirmed  by  King  David  the  Second,  Douglas 
himself  witnessing  the  royal  charter,^  while  the  Bishop  of  Glasgow  also 
added  his  confirmation  of  the  church  to  the  monks  for  their  own  use,  after 
tlie  death  or  demission  of  the  then  rector,  reserving  the  canonical  obedience 
of  the  Abbot  and  his  successors  as  rectors,  with  other  conditions.'-  For 
some  time  afterwards  the  Earl  continued  to  interest  himself  on  behalf  of  the 
monks,  and  made  repeated  requests  to  the  Bishop  of  Glasgow  to  give  them 
immediate  possession  of  the  benefice,  and  reserve  the  rector's  rights,  which  the 
Bishop  granted,  both  on  account  of  his  own  confirmation  and  also  because,  as 
he  himself  asserted,  '"  according  to  law  it  is  of  little  use  to  any  one  to  have 
anything  adjudged  to  him  unless  he  enjoy  corporal  possession  of  it."  He 
accordingly  issued  his  mandate  for  the  induction  of  the  Abbot  of  Melrose 
into  possession  of  the  church  of  Cavers.'^  It  would  appear,  however,  that 
notwithstanding  these  and  other  grants  in  their  favour  by  kings,  bishops,  and 
earls,  the  monk^  obtained  no  actual  or  peacealjle  jtossession  of  Great  Cavers 

I  Liber   <le    Melros,    vol.   ii.    pp.   429-433.       burgh,  10th  January  13G0. 
The  charters  by  the  Earls  of  Mar  and  Douglas  -  Liber  de  Melros,  vol.  ii.  j.p.  433,  434. 

are  not  dated.     The  king's  is  <lated  at  Edin-  ^  Ihid.  p.  435. 


for  a  considerable  time,  and  it  was  not  until  more  than  one  application  had 
been  made  to  the  Papal  See  that,  in  1406,  they  obtained  full  possession.  In 
one  petition  to  the  Pope  tlie  monks  assign  an  occupation  by  the  English  as 
one  reason  why  Cavers  was  of  no  use  to  the  Abbey.^ 

In  this  year  also  (13G0)  the  Earl  of  Douglas  seems  to  have  held  a 
Justiciary  Court  at  Edinburgh.  At  a  later  date,  after  the  accession  of  King 
Piobert  the  Second  to  the  throne,  the  Earl  held  the  appointment  of  Justiciary 
of  Scotland  south  of  the  Forth.-  Whether  he  occupied  this  important  otiice 
under  David  the  Second  is  not  clear,  but  in  the  account  rendered  to 
Exchequer  by  the  Chamberlain  of  Scotland  for  the  year  ending  June  13G1, 
is  an  entry  of  the  sum  of  £8,  10s.  as  part  payment  to  the  Earl  of  Douglas  of 
the  expenses  of  his  Justiciary  Court  held  at  Edinburgh,  probably  during 
1360,  but  no  date  is  recorded.  Another  judicial  appointment  which  the 
Earl  of  Douglas  received,  and  which  was  bestowed  on  him  by  David  the 
Second,  was  the  sheriffship  of  Lanark.^  He  held  this  office  under  a  separate 
commission,  as  it  was  not  included  in  the  charter  of  1354,  which  con- 
ferred the  leadership  of  the  men  of  the  Upper  Ward  of  Clyde.  Besides 
the  charters  granted  by  the  Earl  of  Douglas  to  the  Abbey  of  ISIelrose  and  his 
Justiciary  Court,  his  movements  during  the  remainder  of  1360  can  be  traced 
only  by  the  royal  charters  to  which  he  was  a  witness.  These  show  that  he 
was  with  the  king  at  Stirling  in  ^March,  in  Edinburgh  during  May  and 
August,  and  at  Perth  in  October.'*  While  in  Edinburgh  in  ]\Iav  the  Earl 
also  witnessed  a  charter  by  Thomas  (Stewart),  Earl  of  Angus,  who  was  then 
in  Scotland,  though  in  the  previous  ]March  he  had  been  summoned  by  the 
EnsHsh  king  to  fulfil  his   engagement  as  hostage  for  the  King  of  Scots. 


^  Liber  de  Metros,  vol.  ii.  pp.  48 1,  527-330.  vol.  i   p.   16;  Antiquities  of  Aberdeen  and 

-  Exchequer  Kolls,  vol.  ii.  pp.  394,  402.  BanfiF,    vol.    iii.    p.    293  ;  Liber  de   Calchou, 

2  Robertson's  Index,  p.  63,  No.  45.  p.  399  ;  Registrum  Honoris  de  Morton,  vol.  ii. 

*  Registrum      Episcopatus      Brechinensis,  pp.  50,  57. 

EMBASSAGE  TO  ENGL  AX  D,   13G1.  239 

Angus,  however,  delayed  or  refused  to  surrender  himself,  and  some  time  later, 
being  implicated  in  the  murder  of  Catherine  ]\lortimer,  a  damsel  who  lived 
in  a  questionable  relation  with  King  David  the  Second,  was  imprisoned  in 
Dumbarton  Castle,  whore  he  died.^ 

In  January  of  the  following  year,  the  Earl  of  Douglas  was  witli  the  king 
at  Linlithgow  and  Edinburgh.  That  same  month  he  received  a  safe-conduct 
to  pass  into  England,  and  on  the  same  day  similar  writs  were  issued  to  the 
15ishops  of  St.  Andrews  and  Brechin,  the  Earl  of  March,  Walter  "Wardlaw, 
arclideacon  of  Lothian,  Sir  Robert  Erskine,  and  others,-  who  were  apparently 
the  companions  of  Douglas  on  his  journey  southward.  Douglas  and  March 
may  have  been  fulfilling  their  engagements  as  hostages,  but  the  bishops  and 
Sir  Iiobert  Erskine  were  sent  on  a  special  mission  of  negotiation.  The  Scottish 
nation  found  the  payment  of  their  king's  ransom-money  a  serious  burden, 
and  had  applied  to  Erance  for  help,  but  any  hope  of  aid  from  that  quarter 
was  frustrated  by  the  treaty  of  Bretigny.  In  that  treaty  between  England 
and  Erance  it  was  agreed  that  the  French  should  retire  from  every  alliance 
they  had  with  Scotland,  while  the  English  renounced  their  alliances  with 
Flanders.^  Erom  the  Chamberlain's  account  already  quoted,  it  would  appear 
that  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews  and  the  other  envoys  were  engaged  at  Loudon 
and  York  endeavouring  to  effect  a  treaty  with  England,  and  a  considerable 
sum  was  disbursed  for  their  expenses.'*  The  sum  of  £80  was  also  paid  to 
the  Earl  of  Douglas  by  the  king's  command,  but  no  cause  is  assigned  for  the 
payment.  He  may  have  taken  part  in  the  negotiations,  though  there  is  no 
evidence  of  the  fact,  and  he  was  again  in  Scotland  by  the  1 7th  of  April,  being 
with  the  king  at  Perth  at  that  date,  and  also  in  the  beginning  of  May.^ 

1  Memorials  of  the  Montgomeriea,  by  Wil-  ^  Sth  May  1360.     Fcedera,  vol.  iii.  pp.  4S7- 

liam  Fraser,  vol.  ii.   p.  4  ;  Exchequer  Rolls,  493.  *  Exchequer  Rolls,  vol.  ii.  p.  77. 

vol.  ii.  pp.  xh-ii,  IGS.  *  Registrum  de  Dunfermelyn,  p.  2(39  ;  Car- 

-  Rotuli  Scotise,  vol.  i.  p.  8.53.  tularium  de  Levenax,  p.  4. 


lu  April  of  the  following  year,  1361,  the  Earl  of  Douglas  appears  at 
Edinburgh  as  a  witness  to  various  charters  granted  by  the  king  and  others. 
Oue  of  these  charters  was  intended  to  benefit  the  Earl  himself.  A  loyal  and 
pious  burgess  of  Edinburgh,  John  of  Allyncruni  (or  Ancrum),  founded  a 
chaplainry  in  the  parish  church  of  St.  Giles,  and  bestowed  his  lands  of  Craig- 
crook,  near  Edinburgh,  for  its  maintenance.  This  chaplainry  was  for  the 
spiritual  weal,  not  only  of  the  granter  himself  and  his  spouse  and  their  kin 
to  the  remotest  generation,  but  the  chaplain  was  to  pray  for  the  dead  King 
Eobert  Bruce  and  his  wife  Elizabeth,  and  also  for  the  living  King  David,  for 
William,  Earl  of  Douglas,  his  spouse  ^Margaret,  and  Sir  Archil)ald  of  Douglas 
(Lord  of  Galloway),  as  long  as  they  remained  in  the,  and  for  their  souls 
when  they  died.  This  charter  was  confirmed  by  King  David  the  Second  on 
1st  May  1361,  and  was,  with  other  documents  of  an  earlier  date  affecting 
the  same  lands,  witnessed  by  Douglas.^  The  only  other  reference  to  the 
Earl  at  this  time  is  an  entry  in  the  Exchequer  accounts  for  1362,  to  the 
effect  that  he  purchased  certain  armour  for  the  use  of  the  king.  For  this  he 
was  repaid  £24,  which  sum  was  certified  by  the  royal  chamberlain.- 

Between  the  date  of  the  charters  above  referred  to  and  the  spring  of  1363, 
the  Earl  of  Douglas  raised  his  banner  in  insurrection  against  his  sovereign. 
A  contemporary  chronicler  states  that  an  immediate  cause  of  offence  was 
a  quarrel  which  arose  between  King  David  tlie  Second  and  Thomas,  Earl 
of  Mar,  the  brother-in-law  of  Douglas.  The  king  seized  Mar's  castle  of 
Kildrummy,  and  placed  it  in  the  custody  of  Sir  Walter  of  Moigne.  Thi^ 
probably  roused  the  ire  of  Douglas,  but  it  would  appear  that  the  true  cause 
of  insurrection  was  not  the  injury  done  to  his  brother-in-law,  but  the  king's 
misgovernment.  Douglas  seized  the  castle  of  Dirleton,  then  in  the  king's 
hands,  placed  a  garrison  there,  and  from  that  stronghold  entered  into  a  bond 

1  Charters  of  St.  Giles,   jip.  S-13.     See  also  Registrum  Episcopatus  Glasgiien-sis,  vol.  i. 
p.  tZC).  "  Exchequer  Rolls,  vol.  ii.  p.  90. 

REBELLIOX  OF  THE  STEWARD  AND  DOUGLAS.   136:5.         L'41 

with  the  Steward  of  Scotland  and  Patrick,  Earl  of  jMarcli.  They  forwarded 
to  the  king  a  petition  bearing  their  seals,  complaining  that  he  had  vicjlatud 
the  conditions  to  which  they  were  sworn  to  the  king  of  England  in  regard 
to  paying  tlie  ransom  of  their  sovereign ;  that  the  money  was  levied  from 
the  commons,  and  expended  by  bad  advisers ;  and  the  complainers  demanded 
amends  to  be  made  by  a  better  government.^ 

Fordun  describes  this  petition  as  unjust,  and  states  that  the  magnates 
had  formed  the  design  of  bending  the  king  to  their  will,  or  banishing  him. 
They  took  arms  to  gain  their  ends  through  force  or  fear,  imprisoned  the 
king's  adherents,  and  fell  upon  towns,  burghs,  and  the  whole  country  in  a 
hostile  manner,  dividing  the  spoils,  in  order  that  the  king  might  compas- 
sionate the  woes  of  the  people,  and  so  incline  to  their  wishes.-  This  is 
probably  a  somewhat  prejudiced  view,  as,  according  to  a  recent  writer,  the 
Exchequer  EoUs  still  preserved  show  that  there  were  substantial  grounds 
for  the  complaint  that  the  sums  collected  for  the  king's  ransom  were 
mainly  absorbed  by  his  private  and  personal  expenses,"' 

King  David  the  Second,  however,  was  by  no  means  disposed  to  accede  to 
the  petition,  and  as  the  complainers  had  actually  taken  up  arms,  he  assembled 
his  adherents  and  marched  against  them.  One  skirmish  took  place  at  Inver- 
keithing,  in  which  the  Earl  of  Douglas  was  the  leader,  as  at  a  later  date  the 
bailies  of  that  burgh,  in  their  accounts  with  the  Exchequer,  were  allowed  the 
sum  of  twelve  shillings  taken  from  them,  with  other  goods,  by  the  followers 
of  the  Earl  of  Douglas,  when  he  invaded  that  town  by  night.'*  The  author 
of  Scalacronica   states   that   this   attack   was   made  on  a  party  of  troops 

^  Scalacronica,  pp.  202,  203.  time  already  under  the  influence  of  Margaret 

-  Fordun,  edition  1871,  vol.  i.  p.  381.  Logic,  whom  he  afterwards  married,  and  to 

^  Exchequer  Rolls,  vol.  ii.  preface,  p.  xlix.  whom  the  Steward  and  the  Earl  of  Douglas 

There  is  evidence  in  existence  which  seems  to  were  greatly  opposed. 

prove  that  King   David  Second  was  at  this  *  Exchequer  Rolls,  vol.  ii.  p.  154. 

VOL.  I.  2  H 


advancing  to  join  the  king  under  the  Eaii  of  Angus ;  ^  but  it  is  doubtful 
whetlier  at  this  time  he  was  not  a  prisoner  in  Dumbarton  Castle.  The  Earl 
of  Douglas,  however,  was  himself  surprised  by  a  night  attack,  led  by  the 
king  in  person,  who,  mustering  his  forces  at  Edinburgli,  advanced  to  Lanark, 
where  Douglas  was,  so  rapidly  and  unexpectedly,  that  the  Earl  escaped  with 
difficulty,  some  of  his  adherents  being  taken.  The  king's  promptitude  thus 
brought  the  insurrection  to  a  close ;  the  Steward  and  his  two  sons  renewed 
their  oath  of  fealty  at  Inchmurdoch,  on  14:th  May  1363;  and  the  Earls  of 
DouL,das  and  March  also  made  their  submission,-  From  that  date  onward 
during  the  year  1363  Douglas  is  found  in  attendance  on  the  king,  with  the 
Steward  and  Earl  of  March.^ 

In  the  end  of  the  same  year  the  Earl  of  Douglas  set  out  on  a  visit  to  the 
tomb  of  Thomas  a  Becket  at  Canterbury,*  and  was  absent  from  a  very 
important  meeting  of  the  Scottish  Parliament  at  Scone,  on  4th  March  1364. 
At  that  assembly  King  David  the  Second  laid  before  the  Estates  a  proposal 
which  had  been  the  subject  of  conference  between  himself  and  tlie  English 
king  and  Council  at  London  in  the  preceding  November.^  This  treaty,  for 
the  proposal  was  drawn  up  in  that  form,  stipulated  that  failing  heirs-male  of 
King  Da\id,  after  his  decease  the  English  king  should  succeed  him  as  King 
of  Scotland.  It  is  said  that  David  proposed  to  the  Estates  as  their  future 
king,  not  Edward  the  Third  himself,  but  one  of  his  sons,  Lionel.  The 
suggestion  was  gilded  by  a  provision  that  the  ransom  would  be  remitted, 
in  the  hope,  no  doubt,  that  relief  from  a  heavy  tax  might  make  the  new 
treaty  more  pleasing  to  the  Scots.     But  the  scheme  was  indignantly  rejected 

1  Scalacronica,  p.  203.  270,  271. 

-  Ih'id.  ;  Fordun,  a,  Goodall,  voL  ii.  p.  369.  "*  Rotuli  Scotite,  voL  L  p.  S79.    Safe-conduct 

•^  Charters  of  Holyrood,  p.  95  ;  Memorials  dated  13th  December  1363. 

of   the    Montgomeries,    by    William    Fraser,  ^  Acts  of  Parliaments,  vol.  i.  pp.  492-495  ; 

vol.  iL  p.  3  ;  Registnim  de  Dunfermelyn,  pp.  Fcedera.  vol.  iii.  pp.  715,  716. 


by  the  Scottisli  Parliament,  who  declared  that  no  Englishman's  son  should 
rule  over  them,  when  the  lawful  heirs  were  brave  men  and  fit  to  reign.^ 

Though  the  Earl  of  Douglas  was  not  present  in  this  Parliament,  hi-;  name 
was  mentioned  in  the  scheme  proposed  by  the  king,  one  clause  providing 
that  he  should  be  restored  to  the  estates  in  England  to  which  his  father  or 
uncle  had  right,  according  to  any  charters  in  his  possession,  or  that  he  should 
receive  an  equivalent  in  a  suitable  place.  This  stipulation  does  not  infer 
that  Douglas  was  privy  to  the  treaty.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  was  in 
England  while  it  was  drawn  up  at  "Westminster,  and  the  clause  affecting  the 
Earl  was  probably  inserted  either  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  his  assent 
to  the  treaty,  or  as  a  balance  against  certain  provisions  for  compensation 
to  the  Earl  of  Athole  (David  of  Strathbogie)  and  other  disinherited  Scoto- 
English  barons  who  had  been  deprived  of  their  lands  in  Scotland. 

According  to  Bower,  who  is  followed  by  Lord  Hailes  and  later  historians, 
the  insurrection  already  referred  to  was  the  result  of  the  unpatriotic  pro- 
posals made  by  King  David  to  this  Parliament.  But  this  is  a  mistake. 
Through  the  discovery  of  records  which  were  unknown  to  Lord  Hailes,  it  is 
proved  that  the  insurrection  preceded  the  Parliament  by  some  months,  and 
had  not  therefore  its  origin  in  resentment  at  the  king's  proposals.  Indeed,  it 
seems  probable  that  the  treaty  was  suddenly  concluded  by  King  David  in 
his  anger  against  the  rebellion  of  the  Steward  and  his  sons,  who  were  the 
heirs-apparent  to  the  throne. 

Although  the  Scottish  Parliament  thus  firmly  refused  to  alter  the  desti- 
nation of  the  succession  to  the  Crown,  yet,  in  the  interests  of  peace, 
concessions  were  proposed.  Ambassadors  were  despatched  southwards  to 
carry  on  negotiations,  who  entered  England  in  July  136-1,^  and  in  the 
following  January  the  Parliament  again  assembled  at  Perth  to  hear  their 

1  Wyntown's  CronykU,  B.  viir.  c.  xlv.  11.  13o-150;  Fordun.  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  36G. 

2  Rotuli  Scotis,  vol.  I  p.  884. 



report.  It  was  then  agreed  to  restore  the  disinherited  lords,  and  to  settle 
the  Isle  of  Man  and  lands  of  a  thousand  pounds  yearly  rental  in  Clalloway, 
the  inheritance  of  the  Baliols,  on  a  younger  son  of  the  English  king.  These 
conditions  were  to  be  met  by  a  total  remission  of  the  ransom  due  to  England, 
but  if  these  conditions  were  not  accepted,  the  Estates  avowed  their  determi- 
nation to  pay  the  ransom,  if  proper  intervals  of  payment  were  allowed. 
These  concessions  were  made  from  a  sincere  desire  to  continue  the  peace 
between  the  two  kingdoms  ;  and  the  proceedings  of  the  l*arliament  concluded 
by  the  assembled  prelates,  nobles,  and  burgesses  swearing  on  the  gospels  that 
they  would  with  their  wliole  power  put  down  any  one  who  should  contravene 
in  any  way  the  resolutions  thus  expressed  by  the  community.-^  To  this  Act 
the  seals  of  those  present  were  attached,  and  though  the  Earl  of  Douglas  was 
not  w^th  them,  he,  a  few  weeks  later,  gave  his  full  consent  to  the  proceedings, 
took  the  oath  and  afl&xed  his  seal  to  the  Act  in  presence  of  the  king  himself 
at  Edinburgh.  Xo  date  is  given,  but  it  was  probably  towards  the  end  of  the 
following  month,  when  the  king  confirmed  certain  grants  of  land  to  which 
the  Earl  of  Douglas  was  a  witness.- 

Tlie  Earl  remained  in  Scotland  during  the  next  few  mouths,  and  was  in 
liis  place  in  a  Council  held  at  Perth  in  July  of  the  same  year,  when  the  same 
important  subject  was  discussed.  In  conformity  with  their  instructions,  the 
Scottish  ambassadors  again  sought  the  English  Court,  and  the  result  was  a 
treaty  proposing  a  truce  of  twenty-five  years,  and  the  payment  of  £100,000 
sterling  into  the  English  Exchequer  in  full  of  all  ransom.  A  short  pro- 
bationary truce  of  four  years'  duration  was  meanwhile  to  take  efiect, 
terminable  upon  six  months'  notice  by  either  party.  The  treaty  was  ratified 
by  King  David  the  Second  at  Edinburgh  on  12th  June,  and  by  the  English 
on  20th  June  136.5.^     The  Scottish  Parliament  met  a  month  later  to  consider 

1  Acts  of  Parliaments,  vol.  i.  ]>p.  495,  49G.  -  Ibid.  pp.  526,  527. 

3  IhhI.  .Supp.  vol.  xii.  pp.  12,  13;   Fcedera,  vol.  iii.  \\  770. 

TERMS  OF  PEACE    WITH  ENGLAND,   13(35.  240 

the  subject  of  a  long-continued  peace.  The  record  of  its  proceedings  lias  not 
heen  fully  preserved,  but  from  the  fragment  still  extant,  it  would  appear  that, 
as  one  of  the  bases  of  a  final  peace  between  the  two  countries,  the  English 
king  had  stipulated  for  military  assistance  from  Scotland.  He  required  that 
in  the  event  of  England  being  invaded  by  foreigners,  the  Scots  should  furnish 
fiMy  men-at-arms  and  six  hundred  archers,  to  be  paid  by  England.  As  an 
alternative,  it  was  proposed  that  the  King  of  Scots  should  assist  the  English 
king  in  his  wars  against  Ireland  with  a  body  of  troops,  for  three  months 
yearly  during  five  years.  In  return,  England  was  bound  to  aid  Scotland  with 
an  auxiliary  force  if  necessary.  These  concessions  the  Scottish  nobles  con- 
sented to  make  for  the  sake  of  peace,  unless  their  commissioners  succeeded 
in  obtaining  better  terms.^  This  hope,  however,  was  not  realised,  as  the 
English  monarch  increased  his  demands  in  proportion  as  the  Scots  appeared 
willing  to  make  concessions. 

Another  meeting  of  Parliament  was  held  at  Holyrood  on  the  8th  of  ]\Iay 
13(36,  in  which  it  was  declared  that  the  English  king's  proposals  as  to  the 
homage,  succession,  and  other  matters,  could  not  possibly  be  entertained,  and 
that  rather  than  sul)mit  to  terms  so  degrading,  the  Scots  would  make  the 
utmost  sacrifices  to  raise  the  ransom-money  within  the  four  years  of  the 
truce,^  The  fragmentary  condition  of  the  Kecords  of  Parliament  renders  it 
impossible  to  state  whether  the  Earl  of  Douglas  was  present  on  this  occasion. 
He  was  present,  however,  at  a  later  Parliament,  which  met  at  Scone  in  the 
month  of  July,^  as  he  witnessed  at  that  place  and  date  a  charter  by  King 
David  the  Second  to  John  of  Logic.'* 

The  proceedings  of  this  Parliament  were  of  the  utmost  importance.  The 
extravagant  habits  of  David  the  Second  and  his  new  queen,  the  expenses  of 
negotiations  with  England,  and   the  unpaid   balance  of  the   king's  ransom 

'  Acts  of  Parliameuts,  vol.  i.  p.  497.  -  Ibid.  ■'  Ibid.  pp.  4!>S-5()]. 

<  The  Re<l  Bo..k  of  Grandtully,  by  William  Fraser,  vol.  i.  pj..  1.31,  1.3*2. 



money,  entailed  a  load  of  debt  upon  the  nation  which  bore  very  heavily  upon 
all  ranks.  Yet  though  bankruptcy  and  the  probability  of  renewed  war  with 
England  were  imminent,  the  Scottish  prelates,  nobles,  and  burgesses  met 
their  difficulties  bravely,  and  planned  new  sacrifices.  The  whole- lands  in  the 
kingdom,  including  the  Church  lands,  were  appointed  to  be  valued,  and  a 
contribution  of  8000  merks  was  to  be  levied  on  the  gross  rental,  to  i)ay  the 
royal  debts  and  expenses,  and  also  the  charges  of  negotiation.  It  was 
ordained  that,  until  the  return  of  the  commissioners,  the  £4000  annually  duo 
as  ransom-money  should  be  paid  out  of  the  great  customs.  After  their 
return,  that  sum  was  to  be  provided  out  of  the  general  tax  on  the  whole 
kingdom,  and  from  the  same  fund  2000  merks  were  to  be  given  for  relieving 
the  king  and  paying  the  commissioners'  expenses.  This  last  sum,  however, 
was  required  at  once,  and  it  was  immediately  borrowed  from  the  three  Estates 
as  follows:  Erom  the  barons,  1000  merks;  from  the  clergy,  GOO  merks;  and 
from  the  burgesses,  400  merks. 

On  the  other  hand,  to  compensate  in  some  measure  for  the  heavy  burdens 
and  sacrifices  thus  exacted  from  the  community,  it  was  expressly  proclaimed 
that  justice  was  to  be  administered  impartially  to  every  subject ;  that  the 
sums  to  be  paid  for  ransom-money  and  other  expenses  named  should  be  put 
to  no  other  use ;  that  the  Church  should  be  protected,  especially  in  regard 
to  tithes ;  that  nothing  was  to  be  taken  from  the  commonalty  for  the 
use  of  the  king  without  prompt  payment ;  while  regulations  for  the  conduct 
of  sheriffs,  barons,  and  others  travelling,  the  number  of  their  retinue, 
and  other  similar  enactments  were  made,  all  tending  to  promote  the 
comfort  of  the  lieges.  These  measures  show  how  anxious  all  parties 
in  the  kingdom  were  to  secure  peace  with  England  without  sacrificing  the 
national  independence. 

The  Earl  of  Douglas  remained  in  Scotland  for  some  time  after  this  Parlia- 
ment.   In  October  of  the  same  year  he  received  a  safe-conduct  to  proceed  into 


England,^  but  lie  seeuis  to  have  returned  thence  or  to  have  postponed  liis 
journey,  as  he  was  with  the  king  at  Edinburgh  in  December,-  and  at  Perth  in 
the  following  January.^  A  recent  historian,  referring  to  this  and  other  safe- 
conducts  granted  about  the  same  time  and  in  similar  terms,  permitting  the 
bearers  to  pass  through  England  or  beyond  sea,  takes  occasion  to  condemn 
the  Earl  of  Douglas  for  deserting  his  country  at  this  juncture.^  It  is  true 
that  at  a  later  date,  as  will  appear,  the  Earl  absented  himself  from  Parliament, 
but  the  charge  made  against  him  can  scarcely  be  sustained.  It  does  not 
appear  that  he  used  the  safe-conduct,  and  if  he  did,  he  must  have  returned 
to  Scotland  some  time  before  it  expired,  as  he  was  present  at  an  important 
conference  held  on  the  Borders  in  September  1307. 

At  this  meeting  Douglas  was  one  of  those  specially  commissioned  to  act 
on  behalf  of  the  Scots,  and  confer  with  the  commissioners  of  the  English 
king  as  to  the  state  of  affairs  on  the  Marches.  The  English  were  represented 
by  Thomas  Beauchamp,  Earl  uf  AVarwick,  the  Lord  of  Gower,  :\Iarshal  of 
England,  the  Lord  of  Percy,  and  Sir  Henry  Percy,  his  eldest  son,  while  the 
Bishops  of  St.  Andrews  and  Glasgow,  the  Earls  of  March  and  Douglas,  witli 
Sir  Robert  Erskine,  Sir  Walter  Lesley,  Sir  Walter  Haliburton,  and  Sir  Hugh 
Eglinton,  re[)resented  the  Scots. -^  The  meeting  is  said  to  have  been  con- 
ducted with  many  altercations  and  debates  ("pluseurs  altercations,  disi)utees, 
ea  et  la"),  but  an  agi-eement  was  at  last  come  to.  The  first  article  was  that 
the  conditions  of  the  grand  truce  made  at  the  liberation  of  the  Kin^  of 
Scots  should  in  all  points  be  firmly  maintained,  while  the  second  clause 
provided  that  the  enclosed  lands,  of  which  mention  was  made,  should  be  left 
in  the  state  they  were  on  the  day  of  meeting,  without  depriving  the  princes 

'  Foe.lera,  vol.  iii.    p.   SOS.      1.3th  October            "■  Kegistrum  MagniSigilli,  vol.  i.  pp.  .30,  51, 

13i>G,  to  eiiilure  for  a  year.  Nos.  150,  152. 

-  Registnim  Honoris  de  Morton,  vol.    ii.            ■*  Tytler's  History  of  Scotland,  vol.  ii.  p.  8(3. 

!'■  63.  ■'  Fcedera,  vol.  iii.  p.  831. 


of  their  claims,  or  the  owners  of  their  possessions,  as  well  those  now 
inhabited  as  those  then  inhabited,  the  profits  being  shared  according  to 
agreement;  so  that  no  one  should  fix  himself  in  a  new  possession  on  one 
side  or  the  other  until  Candlemas  next,  when  the  King  of  Scots  or  the 
Scottish  Wardens  should  be  certified  of  the  King  of  England's  pleasure. 
Then  follows  the  appointment  of  wardens  on  both  sides  for  the  East  and 
"West  Marches  of  both  countries,  succeeded  by  minute  regulations  for  the 
apprehension  and  punishment  of  offenders,  and  other  details  immediately 
afiecting  the  Borders  alone.  The  conference  lasted  four  days,  beginning  at 
Moorhouselaw  on  the  1st,  and  ending  at  Roxburgh  on  the  4th  of  September 

Though  the  Earl  of  Douglas  was  a  special  commissioner  at  the  conference 
just  narrated,  in  the  records  of  a  Parliament  held  at  Scone  about  three  weeks 
later,  he  and  the  Earls  of  ]\Iarcli  and  Pioss  are  expressly  declared  to  be 
contumaciously  absent,-  and  it  is  certain  that  a  month  afterwards  he  had  a 
safe-conduct  to  pass  through  England.^  The  Earl's  behaviour,  however,  does 
not  indicate  any  desire  on  his  part  to  desert  his  country,  as  has  been  alleged, 
for  he  was  present  in  Parliament  at  Scone  in  February  1368.^  It  rather 
shows  his  continued  dissatisfaction  with  the  conduct  of  the  king  and  his 
queen,  Margaret  of  Logie,  who,  notwithstanding  the  sacrifices  made  l)y  the 
Scottish  nation  to  pay  the  king's  debts,  maintained  an  imdue  extravagance, 
for  which  the  Estates  were  now  met  to  devise  remedial  measures. 

It  is  possible  that  Douglas  objected  to  the  measures  proposed,  but  the 
immediate  cause  of  his  absence  from  the  Parliament  was  his  partisanship 
with  the  Earl  of  March,  who  had  a  special  grie\'ance.  As  formerly  stated, 
the  Steward  of  Scotland,  and  the  Earls  of  March  and  Douglas  headed  a  party 

1  Fcedera,  vol.    iii.    p.    831  ;   Acts   of   the  '^  Fcedera,  vol.  iii.  p.  833. 

Parliaments  of  Scotland,  vol.  xii.  pp.  14,  15. 

-  Ih'id.  vol.  i.  p.  501.    27th  September  13G7.         ■*  Acts  of  Parliaments,  vol.  xii.  p.  10. 


which  Avas  strongly  opposed  to  tlie  queen  and  her  faction.  The  Steward, 
from  his  position,  coukl  not  well  absent  himself  from  Parliament,  but  the 
other  complainants  did  so,  their  chief  reason  probably  being  the  grant  of 
Annandale  made  in  the  previous  year  to  John  of  Logic,  the  king's  step-son. 

The  document  narrating  the  bestowal  of  Annandale  is  somewhat 
remarkable.  It  is  a  letter  by  various  Scottish  dignitaries  and  nobles, 
including  the  Steward  and  the  Earls  of  ]\Iarch  and  Douglas,  in  which  the}- 
consent  to  the  king's  charter  to  John  of  Logic,  and  promise  for  themselves 
and  their  heirs  to  do  notliing  in  contravention  of  the  deed.^  The  lordship  of 
Annandale  thus  granted  was  then  wholly,  or  almost  wholly,  in  the  hands  of 
the  English,-  but  it  is  described  as  the  same  lands  which  King  Eobert  Bruce 
bestowed  on  his  nephew,  Sir  Thomas  Eandolph,  Earl  of  ]\Ioray.  Annandale, 
therefore,  as  well  as  the  earldom  of  Moray,  was  claimed  by  Patrick,  Earl  of 
March  and  Moray,  who  had  married  Piandolph's  daughter,  and  his  right  to 
the  lands  would  have  revived  on  the  expulsion  of  the  enemy .^  The  gift  of 
this  territory  to  John  of  Logic  was  therefore  an  act  of  great  injustice.  It  is 
true  that  the  Earl  of  ]^Iarch  outwardly  consented  to  the  grant,  but  though  he 
restrained  his  resentment  at  the  time,  he  could  not  but  feel  deeply  indignant, 
and  this  sentiment  was  evidently  shared  by  the  Earl  of  Douglas. 

The  Earl  of  Douglas  was  in  Scotland  in  Eebruary  13G8,  and  witnessed  a 
charter  to  the  Abbey  of  Cambuskenneth.'*  He  was  at  Cavers  on  the  19th 
of  May,^  while  he  is  not  named  as  present  in  the  Parliament  which  met  at 
Scone  from  the  12th  to  the  22d  of  June  following,  though  on  the  4th  of  July 

1  Red   Book   of   Grandtully,    by    William  of  Annandale  to  Logic  never  had   any  real 

Fraaer,  vol.  L  pp.   132*,   133*.     This  writ  is  effect.     After  the  accession  of  King  Eobert 

said  to  be  executed  in  presence  of  the  king,  the   Second,   the    Earl    of    March    is    again 

in  full  Parliament  at  Scone,  on  2Gth  July  l;3GG.  described  as  Lord  of  Annandale,  though  tlie 

-  Acts   of   the    Parliaments   of    Scotland,  territory  was  long  under  English  rule, 

vol  L  p.  499.  ■*  Acts  of  Parliaments,  vol.  xii.  p.  16. 

'  It  may  be  stated  in  passing  that  the  gift  ^  Liber  de  Metros,  p.  430. 

VOL.  I.  2  I 



he  was  with  the  king  at  Stirling.^  In  the  Parliament  referred  to,  the  principal 
topics  were  the  dissensions  among  the  nobility,  the  rebellious  state  of  the 
Highlands  and  Islands,  and  depredations  on  the  Marches.  The  Steward  of 
Scotland,  as  Lord  of  Strathern,  his  sons,  the  Lords  of  Kyle  and  ]Menteith, 
and  the  Earl  of  Mar,  were  expressly  enjoined  to  protect  the  lieges  against 
marauders  from  their  domains,  one  of  the  chief  offenders  being  John  of  Lorn, 
the  Steward's  son-in-law.  As  to  disorders  on  the  ]\Iarches,  the  king  was 
advised  to  hold  counsel  with  the  Earls  of  March  and  Douglas,  as  Wardens  on 
the  East  ^larch,  although,  it  is  significantly  added,  they  may  not  presently  be 
well  disposed  to  the  labour.  By  their  advice  wardens  were  to  be  speedily 
and  prudently  appointed.-  Shortly  after  this  Parliament  the  Steward  was 
imprisoned  in  Lochleven  Castle,  apparently  at  the  instance  of  Queen 
Margaret.^  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  parliamentaiy  proceedings  at 
this  time  indicate  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  King  David  the  Second  to 
throw  the  blame  of  complicity  in  the  disorders  of  the  kingdom  upon  the 
Steward  and  the  Earls  of  I\L\rch  and  Douglas,  the  leaders  of  the  party  opposed 
to  the  Queen.*  If  this  suggestion  be  well  founded,  and  there  is  much  to 
warrant  it,  the  fact  so  stated  w^ould  satisfactorily  account  for  the  continued 
absence  from  Parliament  of  the  Earls  of  March  and  Douglas,  and  certainly 
their  hostility  would  not  be  lessened  by  the  incarceration  of  the  Steward. 

That  incarceration,  however,  was  not  of  long  duration,  and  after  the 
Steward  was  set  at  liberty,  the  Earl  of  Douglas  seems  to  have  still 
attended  at  Court,  though  absent  from  meetings  of  the  Estates.  A  month 
after  the  meeting  of  Parliament,  the  Earl  and  the  Steward  were  witnesses 
together  of  a  royal  charter  granted  at  Edinburgh.^  Towards  the  end  of  the 
year  the  Earl's  attendances  on  the  king  were  more  constant,  as  he  is  found 

1  Acta    of    the    Parliaments    of   Scotland, 
vol.  L  pp.  503-506,  531,  532. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  503,  504. 

'  Fordun,  a  GoodaU,  vol.  ii.  p.  3S0. 

^  Exchequer  Rolls,  vol.  ii.  preface,  p.  Ixii. 

•'  Red  Book  of  Graudtully,  vol.  i.  p.  135.* 


witnessing  several  charters  at  Dundee  in  the  end  of  November  13G8/  at 
Tertli  in  December,-  and  at  Edinburgh  in  January  and  February  of  tlie 
foUowing  year.^  This  continued  attendance  on  King  David  may  be  attri- 
buted to  tlie  fact  that  Queen  Margaret's  influence  was,  from  various  causes, 
beginning  to  wane,^  and  that  the  Steward  was  again  in  favour,  as  he  appears 
as  a  witness  along  with  Douglas. 

But  though  the  Earl  attended  at  Court,  he  was  not  in  his  place  in  the 
Parliament  which  assembled  at  Perth  on  the  6th  of  jMarcli  following.  He 
was,  however,  numbered  among  those  who  were  excused  for  legitimate  reasons, 
and  was  represented  by  a  procurator.  The  latter,  in  the  Earl's  stead,  was 
appointed  one  of  a  committee  set  apart  to  treat  of  general  business,  the 
members  being  chosen  from  each  of  the  three  Estates,  while  permission  was 
given  to  the  remainder  of  the  assemblage  to  return  home.^  The  I'arliament 
thus  constituted  had  under  its  consideration,  not  only  the  troublous  state  of 
the  Highlands  and  Isles,  but  also  the  continuation  of  the  truce  with  England, 
whicli  was  now  drawino;  to  a  close.  It  was  determined  to  make  an  efibrt  to 
obtain  an  extension  of  the  truce,  and  ambassadors  were  despatched  to 
England  with  instructions  to  that  end. 

Happily  for  Scotland,  the  course  of  political  events  in  tlie  south  had 
changed.  King  Edward  the  Third  had  become  embroiled  with  France,  and 
was  now  as  anxious  to  treat  favourably  with  the  Scotch  envoys,  as  he  had 
previously  been  to  make  insolent  demands.  The  result  was  the  arrangement 
of  a  fourteen  years' peace  between  the  two  countries.  On  20th  July  1369, 
the  King  of  Scots  and  his  Council,  at  the  castle  of  Edinburgh,  ratified  the 

*  Registrum   Honoris   de   Morton,   vol.  ii.  ^  Registrura   Honoris  de  Morton,   pp.   70, 

pp.  06,  G7.  71  ;  vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  p.  22. 

*  She  was  divorced  in  March  of  that  year, 

-  The    Scotts   of   Buccleuch,    by    William       1369.     Exchequer  Eolls,  vol.  ii.  p.  ."UG. 
Fraser,  vol.  ii  p.  6.  ^  Acts  of  Parliaments,  vol.  i.  pp.  506,  507. 


treaty  of  peace  on  behalf  of  Scotlaud,  while  the  Earl  of  Douglas  and  other 
nobles,  on  their  part,  swore  solemnly  to  adhere  to  and  preserve  it  inviolate. 
By  the  treaty  thus  concluded,  tlie  sum  of  56,000  merks  was  fixed  as  the 
amount  of  ransom  still  unpaid,  which  was  to  be  liquidated  by  yearly  instal- 
ments of  4000  merks,  while  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  13G5  were  declared 
null  and  void.^ 

The  Earl  of  Douglas  had  apparently  about  this  time  projected  a  journey 
into  England,  probably  with  his  Countess,  as  they  both  received  safe-conducts 
in  the  month  of  June,  when  the  truce  was  first  proclaimed.-  There  is  no 
evidence,  however,  that  the  journey  was  made,  at  least  by  the  Earl,  who,  as 
already  stated,  was  present  at  the  signing  of  the  treaty.  In  the  month  of 
September  also,  the  Earl  was  in  Edinburgh  and  a  witness  to  charters  thcre.-^ 
At  a  later  date,  King  David  the  Second  set  out  on  his  northern  expedition, 
directed  against  John  of  the  Isles,  who  submitted  at  Inverness  on  15th 
November.*  It  would  appear  that  the  Earl  of  Douglas  accompanied  the  king 
to  the  north,  as  he  witnessed  royal  charters  at  Montrose  in  the  end  of  October, 
and  again  at  Montrose  and  Perth  in  the  beginning  and  middle  of  December 
of  the  same  year,^  and  at  Edinburgh  in  the  succeeding  January.'^ 

Parliament  assembled  at  Perth  in  February,  and  again  the  Earl  of  Douglas 
was  represented  only  by  a  procurator,  but  as  the  proceedings,  though 
important,  do  not  bear  on  his  personal  history,  they  need  not  be  referred 
to  here.  A  month  or  two  later,  in  April  1370,  at  Edinburgh,  the  Earl  was 
a  principal   party  in  a  transaction  affecting  the  Douglases  of  Lothian  or 

'  Fcedera,    vol.    iii.    pp.    S77-S70.       The  ^  Acts  of  Parliaments,  vol.  xiL  p.  16. 

treaty  was  ratified  on  the  part  of  England  at  "  Registrum  Honoris  de  Morton,  vol.  ii.  p. 

Westminster,  on  2-lth  August  1 369.  75;  The   Scotts  of  Buccleuch,    by   William 

„-,,,.-,      .  ,    .  „„, ^  Fraser,  vol.  ii.   p.  9;  History  of  the  Earls  of 

2  Rotuh  Scotiffi,  vol.  1.  pp.  931,  932.  ^  ^ 

Southesk,  by  William  Fraser,  p.  4S9. 

•^  Liber  de  Melros,  p.  407  ;  The  Scotts  of  ^  The  Lennox,  by  William  Fraser,  vol.  ii. 

Buccleuch,  by  William  Fraser,  vol.  ii.  p.  S.  p.  37. 


Dalkeith.^  This  was  a  t'oriual  resiguation  by  liiin  of  all  lands  which  he  huld 
by  any  right  in  the  barony  of  Dalkeith.  This  resignation  is  a  soniewlial 
important  document,  as,  although  there  is  no  evidence  of  actual  possession  of 
the  lands  of  Dalkeith  by  the  Earl  of  Douglas,  this  writ  shows  that  he  either 
held  or  claimed  to  hold  certain  rights  over  tliat  barony.  The  territor\' 
in  question  had  belonged  to  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale,  and  as  he  had  no  lieirs- 
male,  he,  in  1351,  entailed  the  baronies  of  Dalkeith,  Xewlands,  and  others, 
upon  James,  William,  John,  Henry,  and  Thomas,  the  sons  of  his  elder  bruthei , 
John  Douglas.'-  The  Knight  of  Liddesdale  at  his  death  in  1353,  left  only  one 
child,  a  daughter  and  heiress,  Mary  Douglas,  who  died  before  30th  Juni; 
1367,  when  her  coiLsin,  Sir  James  Douglas,  the  eldest  nephew  of  the  Knight, 
was  served  heir  to  her  in  certain  lands  in  the  sheriffdom  uf  Dumfries.^ 

The  history  of  the  barony  of  Dalkeith  between  1353  and  1369  is  obscure, 
though  at  the  latter  date  Sir  James  Douglas  seems  to  have  l)een  in  possession, 
as  he  resigned  the  lands  into  the  king's  hands,  and  received  a  charter  in 
favour  of  himself  and  his  heirs.^  A  few  months  previously,  he  had  receiveil 
the  royal  licence  to  build  and  repair  the  castle.^  The  lands  themselves  had 
shortly  before  formed  tlie  subject  of  a  keen  dispute,  in  which  a  nice  question 
of  law  was  raised,  under  the  following  circumstances  : — ^lary  Douglas,  heiress 
of  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale,  was  twice  married,  first  to  Reginald  More,  son 
and  heir  of  Sir  AVilliam  ^fore  of  Abercorn,  who  divorced  her ;  atid  secondly, 
to  Sir  Thomas  Erskine,  son  and  heir  of  Sir  Eobert  Erskine.^  By  her  second 
husband  she  became  pregnant,  and  died  immediately  after  giving  birth  to  a 

'  Kegistrum  Honoris  de  Morton,  vol.  ii.  Douglas,    while    ou    30th    November    13G1, 

P-  '  —             '  Ifji'l.  p.  7)o.             '■'  Ibid.  p.  64.  a  further  sum  was  paid  for  the   delivery  uf 

*  Ibi'f.y.'Jo.     9th  December  13(30.  the  lady's  person.     [Original  receipts  in  Public 

^  fljhl.  p.  69.     5th  January  1369.  Record  OflBee.]     The  Papal  Dispensation  for 

"  On30th  June  1360,  Sir  William  More  paid  the  marriage  of  Thomas  Erskiue  and  Mary 

to  the  Mayor  of  Newcastle  i-250,  part  of  67. 3  Douglas     is    dated    29th    November     136."). 

marks  to  be  paid  for  the  marriage  of  Mary  de  [Theiner's  Vetera  Monumenta,  p.  330.] 


child,  whose  survival  was  disputed.  Sir  Tliomas  Erskine  claimed  a  liferent 
right  to  the  lands  of  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale,  according  to  the  courtesy  of 
Scotland,  on  the  plea  that  the  child  of  his  marriage  with  j\Iary  Douglas  had 
been  born  alive.  James  Douglas,  the  nephew  of  the  Knight,  contradicted 
this  assertion  and  opposed  the  claim,  declaring  that  the  lands  ought  to  be  his 
by  hereditary  right.  Instead  of  trying  the  question  in  the  courts  of  law,  it 
was  arranged  to  be  decided  by  a  duel  between  the  two  claimants,  to  take  place 
at  Edinburgh  in  presence  of  King  David  the  Second.  By  the  intervention  of 
friends  and  the  special  mediation  of  the  king,  the  duel  was  stopped.  Sir 
Thomas  Erskine  consented  to  receive  a  sum  of  money  in  lieu  of  his  claims, 
and  the  whole  lands  of  the  Knight  of  Liddesdale  thus  remained  in  the 
possession  of  Sir  James  Douglas  by  hej'editary  right.^ 

Although  this  narrative  does  not  throw  any  light  on  the  claims  of  the 
Earl  of  Douglas  to  the  barony  of  Dalkeith,  it  seems  to  show  that  Sir  James 
Douglas's  right  to  the  lauds  was  admitted  to  be  hereditary,  and  forbids  tlie 
supposition  of  an  arbitrary  invasion  by  the  Earl.  The  Earl's  resignation  is 
in  favour  not  of  Sir  James  Douglas,  but  of  the  deceased  heiress  of  the  Knight 
of  Liddesdale,  and  may  have  been  deemed  necessary  to  secure  the  right  of  Sir 
James  to  the  barony,  at  whose  instance  it  was  immediately  followed  by  a 
ratification  from  the  king.-  The  Earl  of  Douglas  may  have  exercised  rights 
of  tutory  over  the  young  heiress,  or  e\'en  over  Sir  James  Douglas  himself,  as 
he  was  still  unmarried. 

If,  as  the  deed  of  resignation  seems  to  imply,  William,  Earl  of  Douglas, 
had  certain  rights  over  the  barony  of  Dalkeith,  he  may  have  resided  there 
for  a  time,  and  his  doing  so  would  afford  the  explanation  of  a  passage  in 
Froissart  which  has  always  perplexed  historians. 

In  his  account  of  the  battle  of  Otterburn,  Froissart  twice  states  that 
in  the  early  part  of  his  life  he  made  an  expedition  through  Scotland,  and 

'  Fordun,  edition  1S71,  vol.  i.  p.  370,  note.         -  Registrum  Honoris  de  Morton,  vol.  ii.  p.  7-. 


remained  lifteen  days  at  the  seat  uf  William,  Eaii  of  Douglas,  at  a  castle  live 
Icagnies  (miles)  from  Edinburgh,  called  "  Alquest "  (Dalkeith),  where  he 
saw  Karl  James — of  whom  Froissart  is  speaking — a  boy,  a  "  faire  yong 
chyldc,"  and  a  sister  of  his  called  the  Lady  Blanche.^  It  has  often  been 
alleged  that  Froissart  confuses  the  Douglases  of  Dalkeith  with  the  family 
of  William,  Farl  of  Douglas,  but  here  he  may  not  be  doing  so.  In  another 
jrassage  where  James,  second  Earl  of  Douglas,  is  described  as  giving  a 
rendezvous  to  certain  French  knights  at  his  castle  of  Alquest  or  Dalkeith 
ill  138.3,  there  is  an  apparent  confusion.  But  Froissart  is  then  speaking 
from  hearsay,  not  of  his  own  knowledge.- 

It  may  be  noted  that  Sir  James  Douglas  is  nowhere  designed  Lord  of 
Dalkeith  until  after  the  date  of  this  resignation.  Two  and  a  half  years 
later,  the  Earl  of  Douglas  and  the  Lord  of  Dalkeith  entered  into  a  bond, 
whereby  the  latter  bound  himself  to  attend  for  life  on  the  former  with  a 
retinue  of  eight  men  at  arms  and  sixteen  archers,  the  Earl  paying  a  sum 
of  GOO  merks  sterling.^  But  whether  this  agreement  rose  out  of  feudal  or 
personal  considerations  cannot  be  clearly  proved. 

A  month  after  his  resignation  of  the  lands  of  Dalkeith,  the  Earl  of 
Douglas  witnessed  a  grant  by  the  king  in  favour  of  Sir  James  Douglas,  of  the 
lands  of  Lathis,  in  the  barony  of  Buittle,  which  the  Earl  had  bestowed  on 
the  monks  of  Sweetheart  Abbey  or  Xew  Abbey,  in  Galloway.  This  donation, 
however,  being  made  without  the  royal  licence,  the  lands  were  now  given 
to  Sir  James  Douglas.'*     In  October  of  the  same  year  the  Earl  was  present 

'  Frois.sart,  Lord  pM^rners'  edition,  vol.  ii.  horseback  with  his  portmanteau  behind  him, 

caps,  cxlii,  cxlvii.  and  followed  by  a  greyhound. —  [Memoir  pre- 

-  Ihiil.  vol.  i.  cap.  ccccxlv.     Froissart  was  in  fixed  to   .Johnes'  edition  of  Froissart,    1S4S, 

the  service  of  Queen  Philippa  of  England  from  p.  xx.] 

I.'jGI   to  1.S6S,  but  between  April   1366  and  ''  Registrum    Honoris    de   Morton,  vol.   li. 

136S  he  was  much  in  France.     Pie  was  six  p.  101.      10th  November  1372. 
inunths  in  Scotland,  and  travelled  thither  on  ^  Ihhl.  \\  73.     6th  May  1370. 



in  the  last  rarliament  of  King  David's  reigu.  Of  tlie  proceedings  of  thai 
Parliament  no  record  remains,  save  a  grant  to  William,  Earl  of  Eoss,  of  the 
whole  earldom  of  Eoss  and  lordship  of  Skye,  which  the  Earl  had  resigned 
in  full  Parliament  at  Perth,  on  23d  October  1370,  in  presence  of  the 
Earl  of  Douglas  and  others.^ 

King  David  the  Second  died  on  22d  February  1371,  and  was  succeeded 
by  his  nephew,  Eobert,  High  Steward  of  Scotland,  who  by  the  Parliament  of 
1318  had  been  declared  next  heir  to  the  throne,  failing  male  heii's  of  King 
Eobert  Bruce.-  Shortly  after  the  accession  of  King  Eobert  the  Second,  the 
Earl  of  Douglas  figured  in  an  episode  which,  if  it  took  place,  has  never  l)een 
clearly  explained.  The  historian  John  of  Fordun,  who  was  a  contemporary, 
narrates  nothing  in  his  annals  but  the  death  of  King  David  the  Second  and 
the  accession  and  coronation  of  the  Steward.  AVyntown,  however,  writing 
somewhat  later,  states  that  the  Steward  was  made  kiiig  chiefly  through  the 
aid  of  Sir  Eobert  Erskine,  then  Keeper  of  the  castles  of  Edinburgh,  Dum- 
barton, and  Stirling.  Erskine,  it  is  said,  in  vindication  of  the  king's  right  to 
the  throne,  marched  to  Linlithgow,  where  the  Earl  of  Douglas  was  preparing 
to  hinder  or  dispute  the  accession.  It  is  further  stated  that  the  Earl  of 
March  and  his  brother  John  also  advanced  against  Douglas,  wlio  was 
astonished  at  the  number  of  his  opponents.  Sir  Eobert  Erskine  and  the 
others  then  treated  with  Douglas,  and  arranged  for  a  marriage  between  his 
son  and  one  of  the  king's  daughters,  a  marriage  which  soon  afterwards  took 
place.  "  Thus,"  writes  Wyntown,  "  eftere  a  royd  harsk  begynnyng  happynnyt 
a  soft  and  gud  endyng."  ^ 

This  storv,  in  the  hands  of  later  writers,  receives  additions  and  assumes 

*  Acts    of    the    Parliaments   of    Scotland,  In  1373  a  payment  of  £500  was  made  to  the 

vol.  L  p.  537.  Earl    because   of   the   contract  matrimonial 

-  Ih'id.  p.  465.  between   his   son  and   the   Princess   Isabel. 

3  Wyntown's  Cronykil,  B.  ix.  c.  i.  11.  1-2S.  [Exchequer  Eolls.  vol.  ii.  p.  433.] 



an  entirely  nnw  form.  Bower  asserts  that  the  three  Estates,  meethig  ;it 
Linlithgow,  began  to  treat  as  to  their  future  king,  when  the  vote  of  the 
assembly  was  given  for  the  Steward.  This  decision  was  opposed  by  the  Earl 
of  Douglas,  wlio  alleged  that  through  the  Comyns  or  Baliols  he  himself  had  a 
claim  to  the  throne.  This  claim  was  combated  by  the  Earl  of  March  and 
others,  and  Douglas  perceiving  that  resistance  was  vain,  by  the  counsel  of  the 
other  noldes  present,  ceased  his  unadvised  pretensions.  A  treaty  was  then 
made  for  the  marriage,  and  Douglas  submitted  freely  to  the  new  monarcli.^ 
This  is  Bower's  tale,  and  Hume  of  Godscroft  enlarges  upon  it  by  givin'^  the 
supposed  steps  of  the  alleged  descent  from  the  Comyns  through  Dornagilla, 
daughter  of  John  Comyn,  who  is  stated,  but  erroneously,  to  be  the  mother  of 
the  Earl  of  Douglas.- 

There  may  have  been  some  foundation  for  the  story  as  told  by  Wyntown  : 
he  was  born  about  the  middle  of  the  reign  of  King  David  the  Second,  and 
may  therefore  be  supposed  to  know  something  of  events  whicli  occurred 
during  his  own  lifetime.  Yet  only  a  month  elapsed  between  King  David's 
death  and  the  Steward's  coronation,  both  which  events  took  place  in  early 
spring,  and  thus  there  could  barely  have  been  time  for  mustering  and 
marching  bodies  of  troops  to  Linlithgow  as  described.  Bower's  statement 
that  the  Parliament  met  at  Linlithgow  to  elect  a  king  is  absurd,  in  the 
face  of  the  fact  that  the  settlement  of  1318  was  well  known,  and  rendered 
sucli  a  proceeding  unnecessary.  Moreover,  the  alleged  descent  from  the 
Cijmyns  or  Baliols  is  now  known  to  be  mythical,  there  being  no  such  person 
as  Dornagilla  Comyn  known  to  history,  while  the  mother  of  the  Earl 
of  Douglas  was  Beatrice  Lindsay,  daughter  of  Sir  Alexander  Lindsay  of 
Crawford.  The  fact  also  that  Douglas,  up  to  this  time,  had  been  a  warm 
friend  and  supporter  of  the  Steward,  while  no  abatement  seems  to  have  taken 

1  Fordun,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  382. 

°  History  of  the  Houses  of  Douglas  aud  Angus,  p.  S(). 

VOL.  I. 

•1  K 


place  in  their  friendship,  verniers  the  episode  related   by  Wyntmvn  all  the 
niore  unaccountable. 

The  story  of  the  Corny n  descent  has  been  again  and  again  refuted,  thougli 
frequently  revived  or  founded  on,  even  by  recent  historians,  one  of  whom 
endeavours  to  show  that  the  connection  between  Douglas  and  the  Baliols  was 
not  wholly  unfounded.  He  states  that  the  Earl's  wife,  Margaret  of  j\Iar, 
was  the  daughter  of  Donald,  Earl  of  Mar,  and  his  wife  Isobel  Baliol, 
daughter  of  Alexander  Baliol  of  Cavers,  and  niece  of  King  John  Baliol. 
It  is  then  asserted  that  the  titles  of  the  Baliol  family  had  at  this  time 
devolved  on  the  Earl  of  Douglas.^  This,  however,  is  erroneous,  as  his 
brother-in-law,  Thomas,  Earl  of  Mar,  the  brother  of  Margaret,  Countess  of 
Douglas,  and  a  comparatively  young  man,  was  still  alive.  He  was  the 
heir-male  and  representative  of  the  long  descended  Earls  of  IMar,  in  full 
possession  of  their  extensive  territories,  and  of  gTeat  power  and  influence. 
Any  claim  which  could  have  been  made  on  behalf  of  the  Earl  of  Douglas 
could  not  have  availed  him  in  the  lifetime  of  his  brother-in-law,  and  no 
historian  refers  to  any  right  in  the  children  of  Douglas.  Adopting  the 
narrative  of  Wyntown,  Mr.  Tytler  endeavours  to  give  it  a  greater  air  of 
probability  by  stating  that  "the  promptitude  of  Sir  Uobert  Erskine  was 
rewarded  by  the  gift  of  three  hundred  and  thirty-three  pounds,  an  immense 
present  for  that  time ;  whilst  the  services  of  ^March  and  Moray  and  of  Sir 
Thomas  Erskine,  were  proportionally  acknowledged  and  requited."-  The 
Chamberlain  Piolls  quoted  in  proof  of  this  do  not  bear  out  the  statement. 
Sir  Robert  Erskine  certainly  received  the  sum  named  and  more,  but  not 
until  three  years  later,  and  evidently  in  return  for  giving  up  the  custody 

1  Tytler's    History    of    Scotland,    vol.    ii.  v.;x3   Isabel  Stewart.      Vide   Fo?dera,  vol.  ii. 

p.  536.     Notes,   Letter  M.      The    statement  p.  1U19. 

that   the  wife   of  Donald,  Karl  of  Mar,   was  -  Tytler's    History    of    Scotland,    vol.    li. 

Isobel   of   Baliol    is    erroneous.       Her    name  p.  .323,  and  note. 


of  Stirling  Castle  to  Kobert,  Earl  of  Meiiteitli.  Any  payments  made  to 
the  others  arc  of  insignificant  amount,  and  have  no  relation  to  the  aflair 
of  Douglas.^ 

It  is  possible,  indeed,  to  say,  as  is  done  by  a  still  more  recent  historian 
who  also  favours  the  narrative  of  the  Comyn  descent,  that  "  for  such  a  tradi- 
tion holding  influence,  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  genealogy  on 
which  it  rested  was  true — it  suffices  that  it  was  believed."  -  But  while  this 
may  be  true  of  the  house  of  Douglas  in  later  days — that  such  a  tradition 
might  feed  their  ambition, — it  could  not  apply  to  the  first  Earl  of  Douglas, 
who  nmst  have  known  who  his  own  mother  was.  Wyntown,  on  whose 
narrative  all  this  is  based,  knew  that  Sir  David  Lindsay  of  Crawford  was  the 
Earl's  uncle,^  and  no  one  could  remind  Douglas  of  his  parentage  better  than 
liis  own  stepfather.  Sir  Eobert  Erskine,  who  married  the  Earl's  mother 
after  the  decease  of  her  husband  the  Eegent."*  The  conduct  of  Douglas  at 
Linlithgow,  therefore,  if  it  be  correctly  reported,  must  have  had  some  other 
motive,  or  it  may  be  that  AVyntown  has  mistaken  the  order  of  events.  Boece, 
who  follows  Bower's  version  rather  than  Wyntown's,  differs  from  both  in 
making  the  negotiations  for  the  marriage  after  instead  of  before  the  corona- 
tion, and  this  may  be  the  more  accurate  sequence  of  events,  as  the  marriage 
appears  not  to  have  taken  place  until  nearly  two  years  later. 

Whatever  it  was,  the  affair  was  so  transient  as  to  leave  no  impression 
upon  the  records  of  the  time,  and  made  no  change  in  the  Earl's  friendship 
for  King  Eobert  the  Second,  who  was  crowned  at  Scone  on  26th  ]\Larch  1371. 
On  the  following  day  he  sat,  according  to  custom,  enthroned  on  the  hill  of 
Scone,  and  among  the  throng  of  prelates  and  nobles  who  then  pressed  forwanl 

^  Exchequer  EoUs,  vol.  ii.  pp.  Ixxxi,  Lxxxii,  ^  Wyntown's  Croaykil,  B.  viii.  c.  xli. 

Preface,  and  pp.  364,  394,  433,  b^o,  604.  *  Old  Genealogical  History  of  the  Eiskiues, 

-  Historyof  Scotland,  by  .John  Hill  Burton,  Earla   of  Mar,   in    Mar  Charter-chest;    Mar 

vol.  ii.  p.  4 IS.  Peerage  Evidence,  p.  .^lo. 



to  swear  fealty  to  the  new  sovereign  came  the  Earl  of  Douglas,  who  paid  his 

homage  and  took  the  oath  of  allegiance  with  the  rest.     This  ceremony  over, 

later  in  the  same  day  he  joined  in  the  unanimous  vote  which  secured  the 

succession  to  John,  Earl  of  Carrick,  the  eldest  son  of  the  king.^     A  few 

weeks  later,  Douglas  formed  one  of  the  Privy  Council  who  met  to  consider 

as  to  the  state  and  manner  of  living  of  the  king  and  queen,  the  ordering 

and  government  of  their  households,  and  the  maintenance  of  their  castles.- 

He  also  witnessed  various  charters  at  Edinburgh.     In  this  year  also    tlie 

Earl  was  appointed  Justiciary  of  Scotland  south  of  the  Forth,  at  an  annual 

salary  of  £200. ^ 

There  is  little  information  as  to  the  movements  of  the  Earl  of  Douglas 

during  the  following  year.     He  was  with  the  king  at  Perth  in  June,  and  at 

Edinburgh  towards  the  close  of  the  year.*     He  was  present  in  the  Parliament 

which  met  at  Scone  on  2d  March  1372,  and  he  witnessed  the  confirmation 

of  a   charter   by   the   Earl   of    Ptoss,    confirmed   by    King    Piobert   in   full 

Parliament.^     Another  incident  of  this  year  was  the  entering  by  Douglas 

along  with  the  Earl  of  March,  as  Wardens  of  the  East  Marches,  into  an 

indenture  with  the  Bishop  of  Durham  and  Henry,  Lord  of  Percy,  at  Lyliot 

Cross,  on  the  18th  October.^     The  terms  of  this  indenture  are  not  preserved, 

but  they  appear  to  have  referred  to  informalities  in  the  receipts  given  by 

Kin<.r  Edward  the  Third  for  the  instalments  of  the  late  King  David's  ransom. 

The  English  king  refused  to  bestow  the  royal  title  upon  King  Piobert  the 

Second,  which  caused  much  annoyance  in  Scotland,  and  although  the  Scotch 

Commissioners  who  paid  the  money  remonstrated,  it  was  to  no  effect.^ 
i  ... 

The  English  Border  wardens  were  at  this  time  instructed  to  keep  their 

^  Acta   of    the    Parliaments    of    Scotland,  pp.  104,  105. 
vol.  i.  pp.  545,  546.  ^  Acts   of    the    Parliaments   of    Scotland, 

2  Ibid.  p.  547.     3d  May  1371.  vol.  xii.  p.  18. 
•*  Exchequer  Rolls,  vol.  ii.  pp.  394,  462.  ^  Robertson's  Index,  p.  109. 

'    Kegistrum   Houoris   de    Morton,    vol.    ii.  "  Ihi<I.  ;  Rotuli  Scotia-,  vol.  i.  p.  953. 


men  ut  home,  armed  uud  in  readiness  to  resist  invaders/  the  knowledge 
of  which  irritated  the  Scots,  and  quarrels  and  debates  arose  between  the  Ea^rl 
of  Douglas  and  IFenry  Percy.  Commissioners  were  appointed  on  botli  sides 
with  a  view  to  pacification  and  securing  the  integrity  of  the  truce,  but  the 
result  of  their  labours  is  not  known. 

In  April  of  the  following  year  the  third  Parliament  of  King  Pobert  the 
Second's  reign  met  at  Scone.  The  record  of  the  proceedings  is  very  meagre  ; 
but  one  important  Act  has  been  preserved,  that  by  which  the  right  to  the 
throne  of  Scotland  was  entailed  upon  John,  Earl  of  Carrick,  and  his  four 
brothers,  the  surviving  sons  of  the  king,  and  their  heirs-male  respectively.'^ 
To  this  document  the  Earl  of  Douglas  appended  his  seal,  while  he  swore  U- 
observe  its  provisions. 

On  the  24th  of  the  same  month  of  April,  the  Earl  of  Douglas  was  one  of 
several  arbiters  who  decided  a  dispute  of  long  standing  between  the  Abbey  of 
Paisley  and  Sir  William  More  of  Abercorn.  Two  days  after  the  settlement 
of  this  dispute,  the  Earl  of  Douglas  granted  a  document  in  favour  of  King 
Pobert  the  Second,  which  is  of  considerable  interest  as  the  first  known 
document  which  connects  the  Douglases  with  the  barony  of  North  Berwick. 
There  is  no  clear  evidence  as  to  when  or  how  the  Douglases  entered 
upon  the  possession  of  that  barony  and  its  great  stronghold  of  Tantallon, 
^vith  which  their  name  was  afterwards  so  closely  associated  in  song  and 
story.  The  history  of  the  barony  itself  is  obscure.  The  Earls  of  Fife 
were  the  founders  and  patrons  of  the  Nunnery  at  North  Berwick,  which 
^vas  in  existence  before  the  year  11 77,^  and  it  is  probable  they  were 
the  lords   of  the  barony  if  not  the  builders    of  the  castle.     In  the  third 

'  Instructions  by  King  Edward  iii.,  6th  3  Carte  de  North  Berwic,  Bannatyne  Chxb 

August  1.72.     Kotuli  Scoti.,  vol.  i.  p.  951.  1847,  pp.   4,  5.     Maioris  Historia,  Ed.  174o' 

-  Acts   of   the    Parliaments   of  Scotland,  p.    146.      .John    Major   was    born   an   Xorth 

^"'-  ■•  P  ^-^^^  Berwick. 



year  of  his  reigu,  King  Eobert  the  Second  coufirmed  a  grant  by  Isabella, 
some  time  Countess  of  Fife,  affecting  the  lands  of  Sydserf,  in  the  barony 
of  North  Berwick.^  The  Countess,  Avho  was  apparently  still  alive,  had 
two  years  previously  resigned  the  earldom  of  Fife  in  favour  of  Ilobert 
Stewart,  Earl  of  Menteith,  a  son  of  the  king,  who  shortly  afterwards  was 
created  Earl  of  Fife,  in  addition  to  his  title  of  Menteith.-  In  1388, 
after  the  death  of  James,  second  Earl  of  Douglas,  liobert.  Earl  of  Fife 
and  Menteith,  represented  in  Parliament  that  the  lands  of  Xorth  Berwick 
and  castle  of  Tantallon  were  held  of  him  in  tenandry  by  the  deceased  Earl.^ 
There  seems,  therefore,  good  reason  to  believe  that  the  Earl  of  Fife  and  ^len- 
teitli  acquired  the  castle  and  territory  as  part  of  the  ancient  earldom  of  Fife. 
At  what  date  the  Douglases  obtained  possession  has  not  been  ascertained. 
It  is  not  improbable  that  the  Earl  of  Douglas  may,  by  the  king's  favour,  have 
become  castellan  of  Tantallon  after  the  earldom  of  Fife  came  into  the  hands 
of  Eobert,  Earl  of  ]\Ienteith,  or  the  lands  and  castle  may  have  been  held  from 
Isabella,  Countess  of  Fife.  On  26th  April  13 73,  King  Eobert  of  his  own  will 
granted  to  the  Earl  of  Douglas  a  free  port  at  Xorth  Berwick  for  ships 
touching  with  merchandise  and  lading  goods,  so  that  custumars,  a  tronar,  and 
tron  for  weighing  wool  may  be  there  by  the  king's  authority,  as  they 
have  in  other  ports  and  burghs  of  the  kingdom.^  This  does  not  imply  that 
there  was  no  port  or  harbour  at  North  Berwick  previously,  for  a  harbour  is 
referred  to  so  early  as  1177  as  the  southern  port  of  the  sea  passage,  of  which 
Earlsferry  formed  the  northern  terminus.  But  King  Eobert  the  Second 
seems  to  have  granted  the  customs  of  the  port  to  the  Earl  of  Dougbs,  who 
in  return  promises  that  if  the  concession  made  to  him  of  the  port  and  custom 

^  Registnim  Magni  Sigilli,  vol.    i.    p.  99,  Fraser,  vol.  ii.  p.  251. 

No.  ^6.     30th  June  1373.  '^  Acts   of    the    Parliaments   of    Scotland, 

-'Resignation,  dated 30th  May  1371,  printed  voL  i.  p.  555. 

in  the   Red  Book  of    Menteith,  by  William  •*  Carte  de  North  Berwic,  pp.  27,  28. 

THE  PATRONAGE  OF  THE  CHURCH  OF  CAVERS,   1371.       2(J3 

should  be  foimd  to  be  iiijurioiis  to  the  king  or  the  coiniiiuuity,  he  will  freely 
resign  the  same  again  in  the  hands  of  his  sovereign.  The  Exchequer 
accounts  record  regular  payments  during  the  next  few  years,  by  the  custumars 
of  North  Berwick  to  the  king's  chamberlain,  but  no  mention  is  made  of  any 
concession  to  the  Earl  of  Douglas,  and  it  is  probable  that  only  his  own 
imports  and  exports  passed  free.^ 

It  was  doubtless  from  North  Berwick  that  the  Earl  made  two  sea  voyages 
to  which  he  refers  pathetically  in  a  graphic  letter  to  the  monks  of  jMelrose, 
dated  in  June  of  the  following  year.  As  already  stated,  Douglas  in  13G3 
bestowed  the  advowson  of  the  church  of  Cavers  upon  the  Abbey  of  Melrose, 
and  the  monks  now  accused  the  Earl  of  interfering  with  their  right  of 
patronage.  From  this  charge  he  defends  himself  at  some  length,  and  with 
considerable  warmth. 

The  Earl  begins  his  defence  by  stating  that  because  it  is  a  pious  and 
meritorious  thing  to  bear  witness  to  the  truth,  he  declares  that  tin- 
Abbot  and  Convent  of  Melrose  are  the  true  patrons  of  the  parish  church  of 
(ireat  Cavers,  both  de  facto  and  de  jure,  according  to  his  own  charter.  They 
had  already,  he  says,  twice  exercised  their  right  of  presenting,  and  no  one  of 
sane  mind  could  say  that  he  had  interfered  with  their  last  presentation.  At 
his  request  Mr.  x\Jexander  Caron,-  the  presentee  of  the  monks,  yielded  his 
right  and  accepted  another  benefice,  although  of  less  value,  which  at  the 
Earl's  instance  the  Bishop  of  St.  Andrews  had  conferred  upon  him,  so  that 
Mr.  ]\ratthew,  the  Earl's  clerk,  obtained  the  benefice  of  Cavers  ;  but  the  Earl 

^  Exchequer  Rolls,  vul.  ii.  pp.  455,  408, 
5S3,  019.  In  the  same  year  the  Constable 
of  Linlithgow,  James  Douglas  of  Strabrok, 
in  his  accounts  with  Exchequer,  stated  that 
the  freeholders  and  servants  on  the  lands  of 
the  Earl  of  Douglas  declared  that  they  were 
not  bound    to    furnish   a  contribution    from 

their  goods,  but  the  ground  of  their  refusal 
is  not  stated.     The  amount  was  343.  od. 
Ibid.  p.  422. 

-  Alexander  of  Caron,  Clerk  of  Scotland, 
had,  on  10th  November  1373,  a  safe-conduct 
from  Flanders  through  England  to  Scotland. 
—  Rotuli  ScotiiB,  vol.  i.  p.  960. 



had  not  done  this  in  prejudice  of  the  monks'  presentation.  Xor,  as  the 
Bishop  had  otherwise  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter,  had  the  Earl  cared  to 
attempt,  without  necessity,  such  labour  as  travelling  twice  from  Tantallon  to 
St  Andrews  in  no  small  peril  of  sea,  if  he  had  not  done  it  for  the  sake  of 
peace — Alexander  Caron  being  a  relation  of  the  Bishop's — and  with  no 
desire  to  annul  the  monks'  presentation.  The  Earl  further  protests  that 
neither  at  the  first  vacancy  of  the  church  had  he  presented  any  one,  though 
in  his  power,  nor  had  he  on  the  second  occasion  molested  the  presentee  of 
the  Abbey  -while  he  lived ;  he  repudiated  such  interference,  either  by  word 
or  deed,  as  a  grave  scandal,  contrary  not  only  to  the  right  of  the  monks, 
but  to  the  terms  of  his  own  grant,  which  would  be  absurd.  He  concludes 
by  an  allegation  in  presence  of  his  Council  and  faithful  witnesses,  that 
he  and  his  heirs  will  never  molest  nor  disturb  the  abbot  and  convent,  nor 
permit  them  to  be  disturbed  in  their  right  of  patronage  of  the  benefice  in 

Tliis  spirited  and  somewhat  indignant  epistle,  in  which  the  Earl  is  styled 
Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar,  was  written  on  21st  June  1374  at  Tantallon,  where 
the  roar  of  the  sea  and  the  remembrance  of  its  perils  evidently  influenced  the 
Earl's  remonstrance.  At  a  later  date,  in  1402,  at  the  request  of  the  then 
Abbot  of  Melrose,  who  exhibited  the  Earl's  letter  of  obligation  before  Kinf: 
Eobert  the  Third  and  his  Council,  it  was  inspected,  transcribed,  and  certified 
by  the  king  under  his  privy  seal.^ 

The  next  few  years,  from  1373  to  1377,  in  the  history  of  Scotland  were 
comparatively  uneventful,  and  but  few  public  events  are  recorded  in  which 

1  Liber  de  Melros,  vol.  ii.  pp.  478-4S0. 

-  Ibid.  In  the  writ  of  confirmation  tlie  king 
describes  the  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar  as  his 
brother,  but  it  is  possible  the  word  "  fratris  '' 

may  here  be  used  in  the  sense  of  "consan- 
guinei."  King  Robert  the  Third  and  James, 
second  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar,  were 
brothers-in-law,  but  no  near  relationship 
existed  between  the  king  and  Earl  William. 



the  Earl  of  Douglas  had  a  share.  He  continued  in  attendance  at  Court,  as 
is  shown  by  his  witnessing  various  royal  charters  during  the  period,  and  in 
one  document  he  is  referred  to  in  such  a  way  as  to  imply  a  special  friendshij) 
betwixt  him  and  the  King's  son,  Eobert,  Earl  of  Fife  and  Menteith,  after- 
wards Duke  of  Albany.^  The  Earl's  chief  recorded  public  acts  during 
the  four  years  in  question  were  connected  with  his  office  of  Warden  of 
the  East  Marches  of  Scotland.  Eeference  has  already  been  made  to  disputes 
between  the  Scottish  and  the  English  Wardens  in  the  early  months  of  the 
year  1373,  and  in  August  of  the  following  year  questions  again  rose  betwixt 
Douglas  and  Percy,  which  required  special  settlement.  The  subject  of 
debate  was  the  Forest  of  Jedburgh  and  the  profits  arising  therefrom.  The 
merits  of  the  dispute  are  not  stated,  but  it  probably  arose  out  of  a  stipulation 
in  the  treaty  of  1369,  that  during  the  truce  half  of  the  rents  and  profits  of 
the  lands  and  possessions  occupied  by  those  who  remained  liege  subjects  of 
the  English  king  in  the  county  of  Eoxburgli  should  be  paid  to  the  Scots,  who 
claimed  a  right  of  heritage  in  these  lands.'- 

The  working  of  this  arrangement  during  tlie  fourteen  years'  truce  is 
illustrated  by  the  case  of  the  son  and  heir  of  the  Earl  of  Douglas  himself. 
On  the  marriage  of  James  Douglas  with  the  Princess  Isabella,  he  was 
provided  by  the  king  in  an  annuity  of  £100,  payable  from  the  rents  of 
E<.lnam,  then  occupied  by  the  English ;  but  as  half  the  rents  were  appro- 
priated by  the  English,  in  terms  of  the  truce,  the  king  granted  him  a  yearly 
sum  to  supply  the  deficiency,  until  the  termination  of  the  truce."  There  were, 
no  doubt,  many  cases  similar  to  this,  and  disputes  must  have  arisen  between 
rival  claimants  of  particular  territories,  making  the  Borders  the  scene  of 
chronic  petty  warfare,  which  at  last  broke  out  in  open  war.     The  wardens 

1  The  Red  Book  of  Meuteith,  by  William  Fraser,  vol.  ii.  p.  260. 
-  Eotuli  Scotia',  vol.  i.  pp.  934,  939. 

^  Exchequer  Rolls,  vol.  ii.  pp.  434,  460,  5U1  ;   vol  iii.  pp.  79,  92,  006. 
VOL.  I.  2  L 



wore  no  longer  able  to  control  their  men  nor  agree  with  each  other,  and  hence 
such  arrangements  as  the  commission  of  29th  August  1374,  by  the  English 
king  to  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle  and  others,  to  meet  with  commissioners 
from  Scotland  to  settle  the  contention  between  Douglas  and  Percy.^ 

These  commissioners  were  appointed  with  a  special  view  to  the  pre- 
servation of  the  peace  betwixt  the  two  countries,  but  it  cannot  be  said  that 
this  result  was  attained  ;  and  a  few  years  later  matters  became  more  serious. 
This  is  shown  by  the  terms  of  a  commission  granted  three  years  later,  in  the 
first  year  of  King  llicliard  the  Second.  The  death  of  King  Edward  the 
Third,  while  it  removed  from  the  Scots  the  immediate  fear  of  a  renewal  of 
the  question  as  to  supremacy,  also  encouraged  them  to  greater  activity  in 
troubling  the  peace  of  their  neighbours.  This  provoked  retaliation,  and  it 
w^as  deemed  expedient  by  both  parties  that  some  magnate  on  either  side 
should  attend  the  day  of  meeting  appointed  by  Henry  Percy,  Earl  of 
Xorthumberland,  the  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar,  Archibald  Douglas,  Lord 
of  Galloway,  and  Mr.  John  Pebles,  chancellor  of  Scotland.  The  famous 
John  of  Gaunt,  Duke  of  Lancaster,  uncle  of  the  young  King  of  England,  was 
appointed  to  meet  with  John,  Earl  of  Carrick,  the  Steward  of  Scotland,  and 
until  the  interview  took  place,  the  Wardens  of  both  kingdoms  bound  them- 
selves, in  name  of  their  princes,  to  keep  the  truce  of  1369.  They  also  pledged 
themselves  personally  to  preserve  peace  and  order  in  their  own  bounds.'-  The 
English  king,  in  his  letter  on  the  subject,  proclaims  special  penalties  against 
all  breakers  of  the  treaty  on  his  own  side  of  the  Border,  showing  that  the 
English  Government  was  at  that  time  sincerely  desirous  of  peace,  though  it 

1  Rotuli  Scotire,  vol  i.  p.  965. 

2  Hid.  vol.  ii.  p.  3.  27th  September  1377. 
The  rendezvous  was  to  be  at  Liliotcross,  but 
in  the  Exchequer  Rolls  of  1377-1378  appears 
a  notice  of  a  "  day  of  the  marches,"  held  by 

the  Earl  of  Carrick  at  Melrose,  which  pro- 
bably refers  to  this  occasion.  The  expenses 
were  £100,  besides  £1S  for  wine,  and  31s. 
for  lampreys — sums  which  betoken  a  con- 
siderable assemblage.  —  [Exchequer  Rolls, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  554,  5S7.] 



is  evident  from  tiie  frequent  documents  of  a  similar  nature  issued  during 
the  next  few  years,  that  tlie  Borders  were  in  a  state  of  ferment. 

Breaches  of  the  truce,  however,  were  not  confined  to  the  Borderers, 
nor  were  the  Scots  alone  the  aggressors.  In  the  previous  year,  137G,  John 
Mercer,  a  burgess  of  Perth,  and  one  of  the  wealthiest  merchants  in  Scotland, 
had  been  shipwrecked  on  the  coast  of  Northumberland.  He  was  seized  by 
tlie  country  people,  and  confined  in  Scarborough  Castle,  but  was  soon 
afterwards  released,  to  the  great  disappointment  of  the  English  historian 
who  relates  the  circumstances.  His  opinion  was  that  the  release  of  Mercer 
was  a  great  loss  to  the  king  and  realm,  for  had  he  been  held  to  ransom, 
he  would  have  brouglit  "  inestimable  riches  "  into  the  royal  treasury.^  The 
cause  of  ]\Iercer's  comparatively  speedy  release  was  doubtless  a  letter 
addressed  to  King  Edward  the  Third  by  the  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar,  dated 
IGth  November  1376.-  In  this  letter  the  Earl  claims  Mercer  as  his  vassal, 
and  represents  that  he  was  in  pursuit  of  his  lawful  calling,  when  he  was 
wrecked,  and  captured,  and  that  his  detention  was  in  violation  of  the  truce. 
He  therefore  requests  that  Mercer  may  be  at  once  set  at  liberty  without 
further  troubling  him.^  With  this  request  King  Edward  complied.  He  must 
have  known  Mercer  as  the  chief  agent  of  Scotland  in  the  payment  of  King 
David's  ransom,  and  the  prisoner  was  soon  after  liberated,  as  he  M'as  an 
auditor  of  the  Exchequer  in  January  of  the  following  year.^ 

The  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar  was  not  so  speedily  successful  in  regard  to 
another  request  which  he  made  in  the  same  letter,  as  to  his  clerk,  Mr.  Thomas 

1  Walsingham,  edition  1574,  p.  212. 
'-'  Vol.-iv.  of  this  work,  pp.  57-59. 

2  It  woulfl  appear  that  Mercer  held  the 
lauds  of  "  Pettland  in  Strathurd  "  from  the 
Earl  of  Douglas.  [Robertson's  Index,  p.  63, 
No.  43.] 

*  Exchequer  Rolls,  vol.  ii.  p.  510.     [It  may 

be  noted  that  Mercer,  to  reimburse  himself 
and  his  companions  for  their  losses  in  Eng- 
land, made  a  counterclaim  against  the  ransom 
money  due  on  St.  John's  Day  1377  to  the 
extent  of  2000  mcrks,  which  after  some 
delay  was  admitted — Ihkl.  p.  582  ;  Rotuli 
Scotire,  vol.  ii.  p.  13] 



Mercer.  It  would  appear  that  this  person  had  been  taken  by  the  English 
some  time  previously,  as  the  Earl  states  he  had  formerly  written  to  the  king- 
concerning  him.  The  Earl  represents  the  annoyance  endured  by  his  clerk,  who 
seems  to  have  been  Archdeacon  of  Glasgow,  and  the  expenses  incurred  by  the 
imfortunate  captive,  amounting  to  200  merks  sterling.  On  behalf  of  the 
prisoner  the  Earl  demands  redress,  or  that  a  formal  accusation  should  be 
made  by  the  parties  who  arrested  his  clerk.  It  does  not  appear  whether  any 
immediate  result  followed  this  letter.  Nearly  three  years  later  a  warrant  was 
issued  by  King  Eichard  the  Second  to  one  of  the  Sheriffs  of  London,  to  detain 
Thomas  Mercer  of  Scotland,  described  as  one  seized  for  adhesion  to  the  kind's 
enemies,  as  a  prisoner  without  chains.^  A  few  months  later,  in  October  1379, 
a  safe-conduct  is  gi-anted,  permitting  Mr.  Thomas  ]\Iercer,  Archdeacon  of 
Glasgow,  then  abiding  in  England,  to  travel  between  that  country  and  Scotland 
until  the  ensuing  30th  i^ovember.^  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Exchequer 
account  of  payments  from  the  custom  of  Dundee  during  the  year  1377,  a  sum 
of  £20  is  entered  as  paid  to  Mr.  Thomas  Mercer  by  gift  from  the  king,^  which 
seems  to  imply  Mercer's  residence  in  Scotland  some  time  during  that  year. 

Certain  private  transactions  of  the  Earl  of  Douglas  and  ;Mar  between  the 
years  1373  and  1379  suggest  an  impoverished  state  of  Scotland  at  this  time. 
This  may  have  arisen  partly  from  the  drain  on  the  resources  of  the  kin--'doni 
caused  by  the  efforts  made  to  meet  the  yearly  instalments  of  the  late  king's 
ransom-money,  and  partly  from  a  famine  which  overspread  the  country.  The 
duration  of  this  famine  has  been  fixed  at  two  years,  during  which  importations 
of  corn  were  made  from  England.*  Bower,  in  narrating  the  accession  of  Kin^^ 
Kobert  the  Second,  states  that  in  his  time  there  was  very  great  abundance  of 
victual,  crops,  and  animals.^     This  statement  is  probably  exaggerated,  while 

^  Rotuli  Scotiae,  vol.  ii.  p.  16. 
2  IbhL  p.  18. 

20th  June  ^  Exchequer  Rolls,  vol.  ii.  p.  565. 

*  Ibid.  Preface,  p.  Ixxxiii. 
^  Fonlun,  i  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  .SS3. 


on  the  other  hand  tlie  assertion  of  a  recent  historian  that  "  the  whole  nobility 
of  Scotland  appear  to  have  been  supported  by  grain  imported  from  England 
and  Ireland,"  ^  from  which  he  infers  great  destitution  among  the  lower  classes, 
is  somewhat  too  sweeping.  Between  the  years  1373  and  1375,  there  were 
indeed  considerable  quantities  of  grain  imported  from  England,  and  several  of 
the  greater  nobles  received  permission  to  make  purchases  there,  but  the  larger 
(juantity  was  imported  by  merchants  evidently  for  sale  to  the  general  public. 
The  Earl  of  Douglas  was  one  of  those  nobles  who  purchased  corn  in  England, 
and  his  name  occurs  more  frequently  than  that  of  any  other  Scottish  magnate, 
only  one  or  two  others  of  high  rank  being  referred  to.  In  April  1374,  lie 
received  licence  to  purchase  80  quarters  of  wdieat,  the  same  quantity  of  malt, 
and  12  tuns  of  wine."-  In  February  and  June  of  the  next  year,  the  Earl,  by 
his  agents,  obtained  in  each  month  ."300  quarters  of  malt  from  the  counties  of 
Lincoln,  Norfolk,  and  Suffolk,  the  Countess  of  Douglas  purchasing  200  quarters 
additional.^  It  is  not  clear,  however,  that  these  transactions  denote  a  scarcity 
in  Scotland.  If  so,  it  must  have  lasted  a  long  time,  or  the  years  from  1379 
to  the  conclusion  of  the  fourteen  years'  truce  in  1383  must  also  have  been 
famine  years,  as  the  imports  of  victual  and  malt  from  England  were  tlien  very 
frequent,  the  Earl  of  Douglas  also  buying  quantities  of  malt,  but  not  so 
extensively.*  In  April  13 78  also,  the  Earl,  conjointly  with  the  Earl  of  Fife, 
imported  from  England  goods  of  a  miscellaneous  character,  consisting  of 
vessels  of  pewter,  worsteds,  saddles,  caskets,  flagons,  and  leather  bottles. 
These  were  for  the  Earl's  own  use,  and  were  to  be  bought  and  shipped  at 
London,  by  special  permission  of  the  English  king.^ 

^  Tytler's    History   of    Scotland,    vol.     iL  or  as  a  pilgrim  to  the  shrine  of  St.  James. 
P-  -"^^G.  3  Rotuli  Scotia,  vol.  i.  pp.  9GS-070 ;  vol.  iv. 

-  Rotuli  Scotia?,   vol.    i.    p.   963.     On   the  of  this  work,  p.  8. 
same  date  a  safe-conduct  was  granted  at  the  *  Rotuli  Scotiie,    vol.    ii.    pp.    30    to    .5."^, 

Earl's  request   to   James   or  Jacob  Ponche,  passim. 
a  Florentine,  permitting  him  to  go  to  Rome,  ^  Ibhl.  p.  7. 



About  this  time  William,  Earl  of  Douglas,  came  into  possession  of  the 
extensive  estates  of  the  earldom  of  Mar,  and  also  received  the  dignity  of 
Earl  of  Mar,  and  Avas  thereafter  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar.  For  a  proper 
understanding  of  those  important  acquisitions,  it  is  necessary  to  explain  the 
state  of  the  Mar  and  Douglas  families  at  the  time  of  the  death,  in  or  about  the 
year  1374,  of  Thomas,  the  last  of  the  male  line  of  the  ancient  Earls  of  Mar. 
By  overlooking  the  facts  mistakes  have  been  made  even  by  recent  writers, 
in  reference  to  the  succession  of  the  Douglas  Earls  of  Mar.  It  has  been 
asserted  that  William,  Earl  of  Douglas,  assumed  the  title  of  Earl  of  ]\Iar  in 
right  of  his  wife,  who  survived  him,  and  that  upon  her  death  her  son  James 
succeeded  to  her  in  the  lands  and  dignity,  which  again  passed,  on  his  death 
at  Otterburu,  to  his  sister  Isabella.  But,  as  will  be  shown,  Margaret, 
Countess  of  Douglas  and  Mar,  survived  not  only  her  husband,  the  Earl  of 
Douglas,  but  her  son,  the  second  Earl,  who,  therefore,  did  not  succeed  to  his 
mother,  but  held  the  title  of  Mar  in  direct  succession  to  his  father. 

Thomas,  thirteenth  Earl  of  ^lar,  was  the  only  son  of  Donald,  the  twelfth 
Earl,  who  was  Eegent  of  Scotland  after  the  death  of  Eandolph,  Earl  of 
Moray,  and  fell  at  the  battle  of  Dupplin.  Earl  Thomas  married,  first, 
Margaret,  Countess  of  Menteith,  but  having  no  issue  by  her,  procured  a 
divorce,  and  married  Margaret  Stewart,  Countess  of  Angus.^  His  divorce 
from  the  first  Countess,  and  speedy  marriage  with  his  second,  shows  the 
desire  of  the  last  of  the  Earls  of  Mar  to  continue  the  race  in  his  own  line. 
But  he  was  again  disappointed  of  children,  his  second  Countess  having 
borne  liini  no  issue. 

The  Earl  of  ]\Iar  having  thus  no  children,  and  no  surviving  male 
relatives,  and  only  one  sister,  Margaret  of  i\Iar,  Countess  of  Douglas,  the 
subject  of  the  succession  to  his  vast  territorial  estates  and  his  ancient 
dignity,  which  was  one  of  the  oldest  in   Scotland,  must   have   frequently 

1  The  Red  Book  of  Menteith,  by  William  Fraser,  vol.  i.  pp.  121-124. 


engrossed  tlie  attention  of  the  cliildless  Earl  of  Mar.  No  patent  or  instru- 
ment of  creation  of  his  dignity  was  known  to  exist,  and  it  may  have  been  a 
doubt  whether,  if  left  to  the  operation  of  law,  his  estates  would  descend  to 
his  sister,  and  his  title  of  dignity  become  extinct,  as  in  the  long  line  of 
thirteen  Earls  there  was  no  case  of  female  succession. 

The  ancient  Mar  muniments  liave  shared  the  fate  of  the  earlier  charters 
of  tlie  Douglas  family,  as  Kildrummy  Castle,  the  principal  residence  of  the 
Earls  of  Mar,  like  the  castle  of  Douglas,  frequently  underwent  the  perils  of 
war  and  conflagration,  when  their  older  title-deeds  perished. 

To  guard  against  the  contingency  of  the  lapse  of  the  title,  the  facts  and 
circumstances  show  that  an  arrangement  was  entered  into  between  the  two 
brothers-in-law,  Mar  and  Douglas,  whereby  in  the  event  of  the  death  of  the 
Earl  of  Mar  without  issue,  his  estates  and  title  would  be  inherited  by  his 
brother-in-law  Douglas  and  his  issue,  with  a  regrant  of  the  title  of  Earl  to 
Douglas,  who  would  thus  become  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar,  the  latter  dignity 
dating  from  the  new  and  not  the  original  creation. 

The  family  arrangement  as  to  the  succession  of  the  Earl  of  Douglas  to 
the  Mar  estates,  would  be  followed  on  the  part  of  Earl  Thomas  by  a  formal 
resignation  of  his  earldom  and  dignity  in  the  hands  of  King  Robert  the 
Second,  and  by  a  regrant  in  terms  of  the  aiTangement. 

The  exact  date  of  the  accession  of  the  Earl  of  Douglas  to  this  earldom 
and  dignity  of  Mar  has  not  been  clearly  ascertained,  but  may  be  stated 
approximately.  The  last  mention  of  Earl  Thomas,  as  alive,  occurs  in  a  safe- 
conduct  to  England  which  he  received  on  22d  October  1373,  to  endure  for 
three  months.^  If  Earl  Thomas  undertook  the  journey  to  England  he  did 
not  long  survive  it.  The  protest  by  the  Earl  of  Douglas  in  regard  to  the 
patronage  of  the  church  of  Great  Cavers  was  made  by  him,  as  Earl  of 
Douglas  and  Mar  and  Lord  of  the  barony  of  Cavers,  on  2 1st  June   1374. 

^  Rotuli  Scotioe,  vol.  i.  p.  9G0. 


It  is  thus  implied  that  Eaii  Thomas  was  then  deceased.  After  that  date 
AVilliam,  Earl  of  Douglas,  in  formal  legal  instruments,  is  styled  Earl  of 
Douglas  and  ]\Iar,  and  as  such  exercised  the  right  of  sole  and  absolute 
owner  of  the  earldom  of  Mar. 

In  his  baron's  Court,  held  near  his  castle  of  Kildrummy,  he  received, 
on  26th  July  1377,  formal  resignation  of  the  lands  of  Easter  Fowlis,  within 
his  earldom  of  ]\Iar,  and  shortly  afterwards  bestowed  them  on  James  ]\Iowat.^ 
The  charter  was  granted  by  the  Earl  alone  in  his  own  name  as  Earl  of  Douglas 
and  Mar,  and  the  grantee  was  to  hold  the  lands  to  himself  and  his  heirs  of 
the  Earl  and  his  heir,  and  to  do  suit  at  the  Earl's  courts  to  be  holden  for  Mar. 
On  the  lOtli  of  the  following  month  the  Earl,  as  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar, 
confirmed  a  grant  which  had  been  made  in  1356  by  his  brother-in-law, 
Thomas,  Earl  of  :\Iar,  to  William  Chambers,  of  lands  within  the  earldom  of 
Mar,  the  grantee  doing  suit  and  service  at  the  Earl's  court  at  Migvie,  witliin 
the  earldom.-  The  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar  confirmed  this  grant  for  himself 
and  his  heirs,  and  made  it  at  his  castle  of  Kildrummy. 

Again,  ]\Iargaret  Stewart,  widow  of  Thomas,  Earl  of  Mar,  in  1377,  had 
certain  terce  lands  judicially  assigned  to  her  by  the  Sheriff  of  Aberdeenshire. 
from  her  husband's  estates  of  Mar  and  Garioch.  At  a  later  date  she  leased 
her  whole  terce  lands  to  her  brother-in-law  William,  Earl  of  Douglas  and 
Mar,  who,  on  11th  May  1381,  granted  to  her  letters  of  obligation  acknow- 
ledging the  lease,  and  containing  certain  conditions  to  be  fulfilled  in  the 
evejit  of  any  term's  rent  remaining  unpaid  beyond  a  specified  time.  This 
document  throughout  is  the  act  and  deed  of  the  Earl  alone.  He  speaks  of 
himself  in  the  plural  number,  and  recites  the  formal  destination  of  the  lease 
as  granted  "  to  us,  to  Margaret  our  spouse,  and  to  the  survivor  of  us  and  to 
our  heirs."     The  Earl's  warrandice  is  by  himself  alone,  and  his  own  heirs. 

1  Antiquities  of  Aberdeen  and  Banff',  vol.  i.  p.  594  ;  vol.  iv.  p.  158  ;  Original  Charter  in 
Torrance  Charter-chest.  '-  Antiquities  of  Aberdeen  and  Banff,  vol.  iv.  p.  723. 

EARL  OF  MAR  IX  HIS  OWX  RIGHT,  1374-1384.  273 

The  Earl's  wife  is  no  party  to  the  letter  of  obligation;  her  consent  to  it  is  not 
stated,  nor  was  her  seal  affixed  to  it. 

If  reference  be  made  to  documents  granted  by  Margaret,  Countess  of 
Douglas  and  ]\Iar,  after  the  death  of  her  husband,  WiUiam,  Earl  of 
Douglas  and  ^Mar,  and  when  she  had  married  as  her  second  husband  Sir 
John  Swinton  of  Swintou,  a  distinction  will  at  once  be  marked.  Previous 
to  the  year  1388  the  Countess's  son,  James,  second  Earl  of  Doughas  and 
iMar,  granted  tlie  lands  of  Drumlanrig  to  his  son  William.^  After  that  Earl's 
deatli  at  Otterburn  in  1388,  the  Countess  of  Douglas  and  Mar  and  her  second 
liusV)and,  as  superiors  of  Drumlanrig,  granted  an  obligation  binding  themselves 
tluat  WiUiam  Douglas  should  suffer  no  molestation  in  his  possession  of  the 
lands.  In  that  obligation  the  granters  are  "  John  of  Swyuton,  lord  of  Mar,  and 
i\fargaret,  his  spouse,  Countess  of  Douglas  and  Mar ;"  the  obligation  is  in  their 
joint  names  throughout,  and  the  seals  of  both  husband  and  wife  were  appended 
to  the  original.-  Swinton  during  his  wife's  lifetime  had  only  the  jus  mariti 
over  lier  possessions,  and  she  joins  with  liim  in  writs  affecting  her  property. 

A  precisely  similar  case  occurs  at  a  later  period,  when  the  ]\Iar  estates 
were  in  the  possession  of  an  heiress,  Isabel  Douglas,  who  succeeded  to  the 
lands  in  question.  She  married  Malcolm  Drummond,  brother  of  Annabella 
I  >rummond,  Queen  of  Scotland,  and  he,  in  1 400,  granted,  in  terms  of  a  family 
arrangement,  tlie  lands  of  Liddesdale  to  George  Douglas,  Earl  of  Angus,  the 
lialf-brother  of  Isabel  Douglas.  In  his  charter  Malcolm  Drummond  merel}- 
designs  himself  Lord  of  ^lar  and  of  Garioch,  declares  that  the  grant  is  made 
with  consent  of  liis  spouse,  Isabel  of  Douglas,  Lady  of  Mar,  Garioch,  and 
Liddesdale  ;  that  his  right  to  Liddesdale  was  through  his  spouse ;  that  George 
of  Douglas  was  to  hold  the  lands  of  Malcolm  and  Isabel,  and  the  heirs  to  be 
begotten  betwixt  them,  and  to  render  to  tliem  and  their  heirs,  whom  failino, 

'  Original  Charter  in  Drumlanrig  Charter-chest,  1385-1388. 
-  01(1  Copy  Charter,  dated  5th  December  13S9,  in  Drumlanrig  Charter-chest. 
VOL.  I. 2  jj 


to  the  heirs  of  Isabel,  a  red  rose  yearly.     The  charter  was  sealed  with  the 
seal  of  Isabel  as  well  as  that  of  jMalcolm  Drummond.i 

The  earldom  of  Mar,  as  possessed  by  Thomas,  Earl  of  ^l^v,  was  in  the  time 
of  King  Kobert  the  Second  the  premier  earldom  of  Scotland.     The  dignity  of 
Earl  of  Douglas  was  then  the  most  modern  dignity  with  the  rank  of  Earl, 
and  William,  Earl  of  Douglas,  was  the  first  Earl  of  his  family,  having  been' 
created  on  2Gth  January  13.^7-8.     Wlien  he  received  the  conjoined  titles  of 
Douglas  and   Mar   on   the   death  of  Thomas,  Earl   of  .Alar,  he   had   only 
been   sixteen  years   Earl   of   Douglas,   yet   on    every   occasion  his  title   Jf 
Douglas   is  invariably  placed  before  that  of  Mar.     He  styles  himself  Earl 
of  Douglas  and  Mar ;  his    widow   also  after  his  death  placed  the  title  of 
Mar  after  that  of  Douglas,  styling  herself  Countess  of  Douglas  and  Mar,'^ 
and  the  same  course  was  followed  in  Crown  charters   by  the  king.     The 
dignity   of   Earl  of  Douglas  could  not   have   been   placed   before   that   of 
Earl  of  Mar,  if  Earl  William  had  been  entitled  in  right  of  his  wife  to  l^e 
ranked  as,  and  to  bear  the  style  of,  the  first  Earl  of  the  kingdom. 

Both  of  the  Earls  of  Douglas  and  Mar,  William  and  James,  father  and 
son,  sealed  the  legal  deeds  granted  by  them  with  their  armorial  seals,  having 
Douglas  in  the  first  and  fourth  quarters,  and  .Alar  in  the  subsidiary  second 
and  third,  thus  again  plainly  showing  tliat  the  title  of  .Alar,  as  possessed  by 
William,  Earl  of  Douglas,  was  junior  to  his  recently  created  dignity  of 

Between  the  years  1378  and  1380,  the  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar  seems  to 
have  engaged  in  frequent  conflicts  with  the  English,  as  though  the  fourteen 
years'  truce  had  not  expired,  it  was,  latterly  at  least,  very  badly  kept  on  both 
sides  of  the  Borders.  It  is  impossible,  however,  from  the  conflicting  accounts 
of  historians,  to  follow  the  true  sequence  of  events.     In  one  of  the  desultory 

1  Vol.  iii.  of  this  work,  pp.  44-4(). 

-  Antiquities  of  Aberdeen  and  Banff,  vol,  iv.  pp.  7-24-727. 


expeditions  of  the  time,  the  Castle  of  Lerwick  was  seized  and  ht4d  tor 
nine  days  by  a  small  party  of  Scots,  who  attacked  the  place  by  night, 
killed  tlic  governor,  and  put  the  garrison  to  tlie  sword.  The  English  his- 
torian who  narrates  the  event  most  fully  gives,  in  one  account,  the  name  of 
Thomas  Hog  as  the  leader  of  the  adventurous  company,  numbering,  it  is  said, 
about  iifty  men.  The  historian  adds  that  Henry  Percy,  Earl  of  Northum- 
berland, the  English  warden,  sent  to  the  Earl  of  ]\Iarch  on  the  Scottish 
Border,  to  know  if  he  were  privy  to  this  infringement  of  the  truce.  ^Nlarch 
responded  to  the  call  by  joining  Percy  in  sumnnjuing  the  invading  partv 
to  surrender  the  castle,  but  their  leader  replied  he  would  yield  it  neither 
to  the  king  of  England  nor  of  Scotland,  but  would  keep  it  for  the  King 
of  France.^ 

Froissart  gives  a  graphic  account  of  the  taking  and  retaking  of  the  Castle 
of  Berwick,  similar  in  detail  to  that  of  Walsinglutm,  but  assigns  the  leadership 
of  the  Scots  to  a  squire  named  Alexander  Piamsay,  and  omits  all  mention 
of  the  Earl  of  March.  He  adds  that  after  the  re-taking  of  Berwick, 
the  Earl  of  Northumberland,  accompanied  by  the  Earl  of  Nottingham,  Sir 
Thomas  Musgrave  and  others,  rode  with  a  considerable  force  against  the 
Scottish  leaders.  The  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar,  with  other  nobles  and  knights, 
including  Sir  Archibald  Douglas,  the  Earl's  cousin,  had  come  to  ])unliar  to 
succour  the  adventurers  who  had  seized  Berwick,  but  considering  that  the 
object  to  be  gained  was  not  worth  the  probable  loss  of  life  which  would 
ensue,  they  ultimately  abandoned  their  resolution.- 

Froissart  then  relates  that  news  of  the  re-taking  of  Berwick  and  the 
fate  of  the  adventurers,  who  were  all  put  to  death  except  Alexander  Piamsay, 
was  carried  to  the  Earl  of  Douglas  and  :\rar  and  the  other  Scottish  leaders. 

1  Walsingham's  History  of  England,  edition  -  Froissart,  Lord  Bernera'  edition,    vol.  i. 

1^74,    p.    222;    also    Ypoiligma    Neustria-,       pp.  501-504. 
p.  13G. 


They  were  encamped  near  Haddington,^  bnt  determined  to  make  a  rapid  march 
to  surprise  Sir  Thomas  Musgrave,  who  was  in  command  of  a  small  English 
force  at  Melrose.  They  set  ont  purposing  to  reach  ]\Ielrose  about  midnight, 
but,  says  the  historian,  there  fell  such  a  rain  and  wind  which  so  beat  in 
their  faces  that  the  proudest  of  them  could  scarce  sit  on  their  horses ;  and 
their  pages,  benumbed  with  cold  and  wet,  could  not  carry  their  master's  spears 
but  let  them  fall,  while  each  man  broke  away  from  the  other  and  lost  his 
way.  In  this  plight,  the  leaders  halted  in  the  lee  of  a  great  wood,  some 
of  the  knights  remarking  that  they  rode  but  foolishly,  for  it  was  no 
proper  season  then  to  ride;  they  might  lose  rather  than  gain.  They 
therefore  waited,  covering  themselves  and  their  horses  as  they  best  could, 
while  some  made  fires  to  warm  them,  though  not  without  difficulty,  as  the 
wood  was  green  and  wet.  The  storm  continued  till  daybreak,  when  the  wet 
weather  ceased,  the  sun  shone,  and  the  larks  began  to  sing. 

Foragers  were  sent  out  into  the  neighbouring  villages,  who  encountered 
a  party  of  Englishmen  on  the  same  errand.  The  alarm  being  thus  given  to 
Sir  Thomas  MusgTave  and  his  company,  the  Scots  could  no  longer  practise  a 
surprise,  so  they  made  an  ambuscade  in  the  wood  and  sent  out  a  few  men  to 
reconnoitre  the  enemy.  The  Englishmen,  on  the  other  hand,  on  discovering 
the  near  approach  of  the  Scots,  sallied  out  from  :\Ielrosc,  to  the  number  of  two 
thousand  seven  hundred,  and,  after  marching  some  distance,  came  suddenlv 
upon  Douglas  and  his  men,  who  could  not  then  retreat.  A  fierce  enoaf'ement 
took  place,  resulting  in  tlie  defeat  of  the  English  and  the  capture  of  Sir  Thomas 

1  Froissart,   Lord  Berners'   edition,  vol   i.  It  is  possible  Humbie  may  be  the  place  indi- 

p.    505.    The    place    is    called    '-Hondbray,"  cated,   as  the   ancient  name    of   that    parish 

which  in  Johnes'  edition  is  explained  to  mean  was    Hundehj,    and    it    contains    a    hamlet 

Haddington.     This  is  doubtful     The  place  is  of   some  size,   while  the  other  geographical 

said  tobealargevilLige  beyond  the  Lamnierlaw  features  stated  correspond  to  that  locality. 

or  Lammermuir,  among  the  mountains,  where  Cf.    Gazetteer  of  Scotland,   vol.   i.   pp.   Su9, 

there  were  fair  meadows  and  a  good  country.  810. 


Musgrave  and  his  son,  with  several  other  Englishmen  of  note.  To  avoid  an 
encounter  with  the  larger  body  of  the  English,  who,  under  tlie  Earls  of  Northum- 
berland and  Nottingham,  had  been  marching  by  another  route  in  search  of  the 
Scots,  the  Earl  of  Douglas  withdrew  his  forces  and  retreated  towards  Edinburgh.^ 

Thus  far  Froissart,  who  relates  the  events  as  if  he  were  an  eye-witness. 
Walsingham,  who  is  usually  accurate  in  his  dates,  fixes  the  date  of  the 
cajtture  of  r)erwick  as  25th  November  137S.-  If,  as  Froissart  implies,  the 
military  movements  he  describes  followed  shortly  after  the  recapture,  they 
must  have  taken  place  in  December  or  January,  which  scarcely  accords  witli 
the  indications  he  gives  of  the  season  of  the  year.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
certain  that  the  Earl  of  Douglas  was  near  Dunbar  in  January  1379,  as  he 
witnessed  a  charter  on  the  second  of  that  month  at  Tantallon,  having 
apparently  come  suddenly  from  Arbroath,  where  he  was  with  the  king  on 
the  2Gtli  and  31st  of  the  previous  month.^ 

The  Scottish  historians,  Wyntown  and  Bower,  assign  the  taking  of  Sir 
Thomas  j\Iusgrave  to  an  earlier  date  and  another  cause.  A  trivial  quarrel 
having  taken  place  with  an  Englishman,  in  which  a  chamberlain  of  the 
Earl  of  March  was  slain,  that  powerful  nobleman,  in  revenge,  took  advantage 
of  a  large  concourse  of  Englishmen  at  St.  James's  Fair  at  Pioxburgh,  to  set 
tire  to  the  town  and  massacre  a  number  of  the  Englishmen.  This  was 
followed  by  a  raid  on  the  part  of  tlie  English  warden,  which,  according  to 
Walshigham,  took  place  in  1377,'*  probably  in  August  or  September,  and 
then  it  was  that  Musgrave,  who  had  ridden  out  from  Berwick  with  a  small 
i)arty,  is  said  to  have  been  made  captive  by  a  vassal  of  the  Earl  of  IMarcli."' 

'   Froissart,  Lord  Berners'  edition,   vol.   i.  ^  Antiquities  of  Aberdeen  and  Banff,  vol.  ii. 

pp.  5U5,  506.  p.  67;  vol.  iv,  pp.  Hi,  724. 

*  Walsingham,  p.  197. 

-  Walsingham,  edition  1574,  p.  222. 
B<3wer  also  gives  the  same  date  as  "shortly 
before  8t.  Andrew's  day." — Fordim,  a  Good-  ^  Wyutown's     Cronykil,    B.      ix.     c.     ii 

all,  vol.  ii.  p.  301.  11.  75-90  ;  Fordun,  iv  Ooo<lall,  vol.  ii.  p.  38."). 



Tliis  is  corroborated  so  far  by  a  warrant  issued  two  years  later,  by  KiiiL; 
Eicliard  the  Second,  to  compel  Sir  Thomas  Musgrave,  who  had  been  liberated 
on  parole,  to  re-enter  himself  in  the  custody  of  the  Earl  of  ]\Iarch.^ 

It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  Froissart  may  have  confounded  separate 
events,  but  his  description  of  the  night  march  at  least  is  so  graphic  that  it 
bears  the  marks  of  authenticity,  and  the  episode  may  really  have  happened, 
though  not  in  connection  with  the  capture  of  Berwick.  The  "  warden  raid  " 
of  Percy  in  1377,  might  quite  well  call  forth  such  a  demonstration  on  the 
part  of  Douglas,  as  would  lead  to  the  night  march  in  question.  It  may  be 
noted,  also,  that  Proissart  makes  Douglas,  before  going  into  battle,  confer 
knicrhthood  on  his  own  son  James,  and  on  two  sons  of  Kin'4  Eobert  the 
Second,  Eobert  and  David.  This  is  also  inconsistent  with  facts.  The  Earl's 
son  James  is  described  as  a  knight  or  chevalier  so  early  as  1372,  in  which 
year  he  had  a  safe-conduct  into  England,-  while  the  sons  of  the  king  held 
knightly  rank  before  that  date.^ 

During  the  summer  months  of  1379,  the  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar  was 
with  the  king  at  Methven  and  Kyndrocht,  at  a  later  date  at  Perth,  and  in 
February  following  at  Edinburgh.^ 

Between  February  and  June  1380,  the  Earl  engaged  in  a  raid  into  England. 
"VVyntowu  and  Bower  both  assert  that  Douglas  was  annoyed  at  an  incursion 
by  the  Earl  of  Xorthumbeiiand  on  the  territory  of  the  Earl  of  March,  and 
took  this  method  of  retaliation.'"'  An  invasion  of  Scotland  by  the  Wardens 
of  the  West  Marches,  however,  is  suggested  by  a  reference,  in  a  warrant 

^  Rotuli  Scotise,  vol.  ii.  p.   IG.     7tb  June 

-  Ihid.  vol.  i.  p.  952. 

^  Registnini  Magni  Sigilli,  vol.  i.   pp.  S4, 

*  Registrum  Honoris  tie  Morton,  vol.  li. 
p.  142 ;  Antiquities  of  Aberdeen  and  Banff, 
vol.  iiL  pp.  141,  181  ;  vol.  iii.  of  this  work, 
p.  28  ;  History  of  the  Carnegies,  p.  491. 

•''  Wyntown's  Cronykil,  B.  ix.  c.  iii.  ;  For- 
dun,  a  Goodall,  vol.  ii.  p.  391. 



addvessed  by  the  English  king  to  them,  to  money  paid  to  the  Scuts  I'ur 
(himage  done  by  the  English.^ 

Wliatever  the  special  cause  of  offence,  Douglas  mustered  an  army  of  his 
(nvn  vas.sals  and  those  of  his  friends,  numbering,  it  is  said,  about  twenty 
tliousand  men.  Dividing  his  army  into  three  sections,  the  Earl  invaded 
( 'umberland  and  Westmoreland,  spoiling  and  ravaging  all  around.  Erom  the 
Forest  of  Inglewood  the  Scots  drove  off,  it  is  said,  40,000  animals  of  various 
kinds,  besides  other  booty,  and  burned  what  they  could  not  carry  off.  Not 
content  with  this,  by  a  night  march  the  marauders  surrounded  and  attacked 
the  town  of  Eenrith,  where  a  fair  was  then  being  held.  The  town  was  full  of 
people,  and  the  streets  crowded  with  booths,  in  which  were  all  sorts  of  wares, 
s(»  that  Douglas  and  his  men  secured  a  large  amount  of  booty.  They  then 
set  fire  to  the  place,  and  returned  homewards,  some  of  their  number,  wlio  had 
become  intoxicated,  falling  into  the  hands  of  the  Englisli.- 

The  Scottish  historians,  in  their  account  of  this  raid,  merely  add  that  the 
Scots  reached  their  own  country  without  further  loss.  Walsingham,  however, 
relates  that  after  their  success  at  Penrith  the  Scots,  returning  by  the  way  of 
(.'arlisle,  determined  to  attack  that  city,  but  were  deterred  by  a  report  that  on 
the  previous  night,  great  numbers  of  the  country  people  had  flocked  to  the 
•lefence  of  the  place.  They  therefore  decided  to  avoid  Carlisle,  lest,  by 
delaying  there,  they  might  meet  with  disaster,  and  be  compelled  to  disgorge 
their  booty.  As  it  was,  passing  near  some  archers  from  Cumljerland  and 
Westmoreland,  the  Scots  lost  some  of  their  number,  but  they  succeeded  in 
ciilcring  Scotland  witli  their  prey  without  furtlier  loss.^ 

'   KotuH  Scotue,  vol.  ii.  p.  21.     At  a  later  -  Wyntown's    Cronykil,     B.     ix.     v.     iii. 

>UU  also,   in    1:581,  the  Earl  of  Northumber-  Fordun,  i  GoocLiU,  vol.  ii.  p.  391  ;   Walking 

lan.l  waa  ilirectcl  to  pay  £02  to  the  Earl  of  ham,  edition  l.")7-l,  p.  249. 
Douglas   for  damage  done  in  his   wardenry. 

—  Ihl,l.  p.  .37.  3  ffyia. 


Tills  raid,  thou'jh  it  inflicted  'n-eat  damage  on  the  Enulish,  costinir  the 
Earl  of  Northumberland  alone,  it  is  said,  upwards  of  one  thousand  marks, 
had  in  the  end  disastrous  consequences  for  the  Scots.  In  the  summer 
of  the  previous  year,  England  had  been  visited  with  a  severe  pestilence, 
especially  in  the  northern  districts.  The  English  historian  who  records  it 
describes  very  graphically  the  terrible  effects  of  this  plague,  and  condemns 
the  Scots  in  no  measured  terms,  because  while  disease  was  depopulating 
the  country,  they  harassed  the  survivors  by  constant  petty  raids.  He  ridicules 
the  Scots  as  being  very  much  afraid  of  the  pestilence,  and  endeavouring 
to  fortify  themselves  against  it,  by  dally  blessing  themselves,  according  ti» 
a  formula  composed  by  them, — "  Gode  and  S.  ]\Iungo,  Saint  Romayu  and 
Saint  Andrew,  schield  us  this  day  fro  Goddis  grace  and  the  foule  death 
that  English  men  dien  upon."  ^  The  chronicler  concludes  with  a  pious 
%vish  that  the  prayer  (to  be  kept  from  God's  grace)  might  be  answered,  and 
that  the  cruel  marauders  might  receive  the  reward  of  their  doinfjs. 

This  wish  received,  it  would  appear,  an  unfortunate  fulfilment  after  the 
raid  upon  Penrith.  The  Earl  of  Xorthumljerland  was  eager  to  retaliate  his 
losses  on  the  Scots,  but  was  restrained  by  a  special  order  from  King  Eicharil 
the  Second.-  It  would  seem,  however,  that  a  force  of  fifteen  thousand 
English  crossed  the  Solway  into  Scotland,  and  did  what  damage  they  could. 
They  were  fiercely  attacked  by  a  small  body  of  Scots,  and  a  considerable 
number  taken  prisoners,  while  many  lost  their  lives  by  the  rapid  influx 
of  the  Solway.  It  was  not  by  this  attack  that  the  Scots  suffered,  but  as 
Bower  mournfully  says,  after  describing  the  riches  gained  at  Penrith,  "While 
the  Scots  thirsted  for  booty,  they  came  to  incons(jlable  grief,  because  from 
their  spoils  arose  a  pestilence  in  the  kingdom,  by  which  almost  a  third 
part  of  the  population  died  that  same  year."  Wyntown  also  records  the 
pestilence  in  this  year  (1380),  though  he  says  nothing  of  the  cause. 
*  Walsingham,  ut  supra,  p.  2;J4.  "  Ihid.  p.  249. 


It  is  stated  to  have  been  the  third  pestilence  which  had  prevailed  in 

In  the  summer  of  1380,  the  Earl  of  Douglas  and  Mar  was  again  with  the 
kin-T  in  the  east  and  north  of  Scotland,-  and  attended  a  conference  of 
wardens,  held  at  Berwick  on  the  1st  November  of  that  year.  The  mandate 
issued  by  the  English  king  restraining  the  Earl  of  Northumberland  from 
seeking  revenge  on  the  Scots  for  their  attack  on  Penrith  was  followed  by  a 
royal  warrant  appointing  the  Earl  a  commissioner  for  punishing  violators 
of  the  truce.^  The  Duke  of  Lancaster  was  appointed  to  the  same  end,  and 
marched  towards  Scotland  at  the  head  of  a  powerful  army,  but  his  deputies, 
the  Earls  of  Warwick  and  Suffolk,  had  met  with  Commissioners  from  Scot- 
land at  Liliotcross,  Maxton